£5 

CL 

.^ 

«T 

IE 

3 

'    * 

■ 

^.^ 

IE 

£Z           *-> 

Q. 

W 

S>     * 

o 

a 

5 

»      8 

a> 

c 

c*            O 

bfl 

^r 

.25            Eh 

< 

3 

fc 

E 

*5 

«»               M 

03 

42 

•£      « 

CO 

s« 

2 
i1 

^ 

s 
^ 

^, 

-a 

c 

8 

£ 

a) 

CO 

CD 

<*fl 

qI 

> 

^ 

^ 

scTr 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/christianbaptismOOwibe 


<~hrUi;m  Bai 


RKV.    ANDREAS    WIBERG 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM: 


BET     FORTH     IN 


THE  WORDS  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


ANDREAS   WIBERG,   A.M., 

FORMERLY   A   LUTHERAN   MINISTER   OF  THE   ESTABLISHED   CHURCH   OF 
SWEDEN. 


WHAT    SAITH    THE    SCRIPTURES  ?"— Romani  ir.  S. 


yjpirtiiflti 


AMERICAN  BAPTIST   PUBLICATION    SOCIETY, 

530  ARCH  STREET, 


This  interesting  book  is  affectionately  dedicated,  by 
the  Publication  Society,  to  Charles  T.  Goodwin,  Esq., 
New  York  City,  by  whose  liberality  it  has  been  stereo- 
typed, and  thus  perpetuated. 


■* 


CONTENTS 


PART   I. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES  CONCERNING  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Section 

I.— Baptism  before  the  Resurrection  of  Christ 7 

II. — The  Commission  of  Christ  concerning  Baptism 33 

III.— Baptism  at  the  Feast  of  Pentecost 70 

IV. — Philip  Baptizing  at  Samaria 76 

V. — The  Baptism  of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch 79 

VI. — The  Baptism  of  the  Apostle  Paul 85 

VII.— The  Baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  Friends 89 

VIII.— The  Baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  Household 91 

IX.— The  Baptism  of  the  Philippian  Jailer 94 

X.— Paul  Baptizing  at  Corinth 98 

XL— Reflections  on  the  Baptism  of  Households 101 

XII.— The  Baptism  of  Twelve  Disciples  at  Ephesus 106 

XIII. — Passages  in  the  Epistles  -which  expressly  allude  to  the  Form 

and  the  Import  of  Baptism 109 

XIV. — Passages  in  the  New  Testament  where  the  word  baptizo 

occurs  in  a  figurative  sense 115 

XV. — Passages  where  baptizo  occurs  in  its  proper  signification, 

without  any  reference  to  Christian  Baptism 115 

XVI. — Passages  where  Baptism  is  occasionally  mentioned 131 

XVII. — Passages  erroneously  interpreted  in  favor  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism   142 

XVIII. — Passages  whose  Reference  to  Baptism  is  doubtful 171 

XIX. — Summary  of  Testimonies  on  the  Doctrine  of  the  Xew  Tes- 
tament concerning  Baptism 174 

XX.— Circumcision 178 

(3) 


CONTENTS. 


PART   II. 


TESTIMONIES  FROM  THE   HISTORY   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH. 

Section 

I. — Introduction 209 

II.— Baptism  in  the  First  Century 212 

III.— Baptism  in  the  Second  Century 215 

IV.— Baptism  in  the  Third  Century 232 

V.— Baptism  in  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Centuries 252 

VI. — Testimony  of  Church  History  with  especial  reference  to  the 

Mode  of  Baptism 263 

PART   III. 

60ME   OF  THE   MOST   COMMON   OBJECTIONS   BOTH   WITH   RESPECT  TO   THB 
MODE   AND  SUBJECTS  OF   BAPTISM  ANSWERED. 

Section 

I. — Objections  concerning  the  Mode  of  Baptism 275 

II.— Objections  concerning  the  Subjects  of  Baptism 279 


APPENDIX. 

Christian  Baptism   as  a  Prerequisite  to  Membership  in  the 
Church  and  Communion  at  the  Lord's  Table 


INTRODUCTION. 


We  take  peculiar  pleasure  in  introducing  the  follow- 
ing treatise  to  the  attention  of  the  Christian  public  ;  and 
this  for  several  reasons. 

The  first  is  found  in  the  position  and  character  of  its 
Author.  It  has  been  found  by  experience  for  the  last 
two  hundred  years,  that  the  most  interesting  and  the 
most  effective  works  on  the  Baptismal  Controversy  are 
those  which  are  put  forth  by  men  whose  own  personal 
convictions  have  been  the  fruit,  not  of  custom  and 
education,  but  of  fresh,  earnest,  and  original  examina- 
tion ;  especially  of  those  who  have  been  led  by  the  force 
of  truth  to  change  their  opinions,  and  to  make  serious 
sacrifices  for  the  truth's  sake.  The  names  of  Tombes, 
Booth,  M'Lean,  Carson,  Noel,  Pengilly,  Baldwin,  Judson, 
Chapin,  Remington,  and  others,  will  readily  occur  to 
the  reader's  mind  as  examples. 

And  it  seems  perfectly  natural  that  it  should  be  so. 
We  all  feel  a  special  interest  in  a  book,  in  which  a  man 
professes  to  give  us  the  reasons  of  a  great  practical 
change  of  convictions  on  any  subject,  particularly  if  it 
appear  to  be  a  matter  of  conscience  with  him.  His 
example  of  obedience  to  conscience  carries  with  it  the 

(Hi) 


INTRODUCTION. 


force  of  an  argument  of  the  strongest  kind;  for  we 
presume  him  to  be  convinced  of  the  importance  of  the 
point  at  issue  to  a  degree  which  no  advocate  of  heredi- 
tary opinions  can  be  supposed  to  feel ;  to  be  better  ac- 
quainted with  the  evidence  and  the  arguments  on  both 
sides  of  the  question,  and  if  himself  a  good  man,  to 
have  weighed  them  more  deliberately  and  exactly  in 
the  sight  of  God.  We  are  more  easily  persuaded  of  his 
independence  of  mind,  from  the  fact  that  he  has  risen 
above  the  natural  prejudices  of  his  education,  connec- 
tions, and  position  in  life  ;  and  if  it  appears  that  this 
independence  of  human  authority  is  intimately  asso- 
ciated with  a  strong  and  filial  dependence  upon  Divine 
teaching,  such  as  is  promised  in  the  Scriptures  to  the 
earnest  inquiry  and  meek  simplicity  of  faith,  we  can- 
not but  profoundly  reverence  such  a  spirit,  and  believe 
that  God  has  really  guided  him  in  his  new  and  better 
judgment.  It  is  no  longer  the  mere  attraction  of  high 
learning,  linked  logic,  or  brilliant  rhetoric,  that  draws 
us  on  in  the  perusal  of  his  book  ;  but  it  is  the  vital  fel- 
lowship of  the  heart  in  the  holiness  of  truth,  in  the 
sanctity  of  conscience,  in  the  love  of  Christ  and  his 
commandments. 

Now  all  this  is  eminently  true  in  the  case  of  the 
author  before  us.  Those  who  have  enjoyed  the  oppor- 
tunity of  acquaintance  with  him  in  his  native  land,  or 
in  this  country,  will  need  no  other  proof.  Those  who 
have  never  had  tbat  advantage,  will  soon  be  satisfied  of 
its  truth  in  perusing  the  book  itself. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Mr.  TYiberg  was  Lorn  in  Sweden,  and  brought  np  a 
strict  Lutheran.  He  was  educated  at  the  University  of 
Upsala,  ordained  to  the  ministry,  and  settled  as  a 
Lutheran  pastor  of  the  Established  Church.  Here  he 
quietly  pursued  his  studies  and  labors  for  several 
years  ;  but  one  day,  after  the  Confirmation  of  over  thirty 
young  persons,  he  was  disturbed  by  the  reflection  that 
only  two  of  the  whole  number  about  to  be  admitted  to 
the  Lord's  table  gave  evidence  of  conversion.  Op- 
pressed with  the  sense  of  his  responsibility,  he  re- 
signed his  position  as  a  pastor,  repaired  to  Stockholm, 
and  there  engaged  as  Editor  of  an  evangelical  journal, 
and  translated  several  works  of  Luther  and  Arndt  from 
the  German  into  Swedish.  The  subject  of  baptism  ex- 
citing some  attention,  in  consequence  of  the  conversion 
of  Rev.  F.  0.  Nilsson  to  Baptist  views,  and  the  banish- 
ment of  himself  and  flock,  Mr.  Wiberg  thought  it  his 
duty  to  defend  Pedobaptism  ;  and  did  so  in  his  journal 
at  Stockholm,  and  also  personally  against  Mr.  Oncken 
and  Koebner  at  Hamburg,  when  on  a  visit  to  that  city. 

Once  embarked  in  the  investigation,  however,  after 
his  return  to  Stockholm,  he  conscientiously  sought  to 
ascertain  the  will  of  God  from  his  word.  The  result  of 
tbis  study  took  him  by  surprise.  Not  without  much 
sorrow  and  inward  struggle  was  he  brought  to  feel  con- 
vinced of  the  unsoundness  of  his  early  views  and  prac- 
tice on  baptism,  and  to  confront  the  serious  conse- 
quences of  a  change.  Sweden,  of  all  countries  in 
Europe,  is,  perhaps,  the  most  exclusive  and  intolerant 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 


in  its  attachment  to  Lutheranisni.  Any  form  of  dissent 
or  opposition  to  the  Church  Establishment  is,  to  this 
day,  visited  by  heavy  legal  penalties,  fines,  imprison- 
ment, or  banishment.  He  knew  what  Mr.  Nilsson  had 
suffered  before  him,  and  what  he  might  expect  if  he 
was  baptized  ;  but  casting  himself  on  Christ  for  life  and 
death,  Mr.  Wiberg  resolved  to  give  up  all  for  his  sake. 
A  sea-voyage  being  recommended  for  his  health,  and 
there  being  no  Baptist  minister  in  Sweden  to  adminis- 
ter that  ordinance,  he  set  sail  for  the  United  States. 
On  his  way  he  was  baptized  by  the  banished  Nilsson  at 
Copenhagen. 

He  arrived  in  this  country  late  in  1852,  a  total  stran- 
ger, and  scarcely  able  to  speak  the  English  language, 
though  he  could  read  and  write  it.  He  found  friends 
among  his  Baptist  brethren,  who  were  charmed  with  his 
deep  piety  and  simplicity  of  manners.  He  was  employ- 
ed by  the  American  Baptist  Publication  Society,  first 
as  a  Colporteur,  and  then  as  a  Translator.  Here  he 
composed  also  the  following  treatise  on  Baptism  and 
Communion,  in  which  he  gives  the  result  of  his  patient 
and  prayerful  examination,  the  grounds  of  his  self- 
denying  change  of  conviction.  The  Society  at  length 
appointed  him  Superintendent  of  Colportage  in  Sweden, 
to  which  country  he  returned  soon  after  his  book  was 
published  in  the  Swedish  language.  He  left  behind 
him  the  MS.  in  English,  which  is  now  offered  to  the 
public.  Though  not  free  from  foreign  idioms,  it  is 
thought  best  to  publish  it  as  he  left  it. 


INTRODUCTION'.  Vll 


If  we  are  not  mistaken,  this  is  the  first  book  giving 
to  the  public  the  reasons  for  a  change  of  conviction 
from  the  Lutheran  to  a  Baptist  point  of  view.  It  has 
therefore  a  peculiar  value  for  circulation  among  the  large 
and  increasing  Lutheran  population  in  this  country. 

Another  source  of  pleasure  in  commending  this 
treatise  to  the  American  public,  is  the  great  success 
which  has  already  attended  its  circulation  in  Sweden 
within  the  last  four  years.  Thousands  of  copies  in  the 
Swedish  language  have  been  demanded  there.  It  has 
excited  the  attention  of  men  of  all  classes,  peasants, 
burghers,  nobles,  clergymen,  statesmen,  representa- 
tives in  the  Swedish  Diet,  and  editors  of  the  public 
journals,  both  secular  and  religious.  It  has  encoun- 
tered great,  and  sometimes  bitter  opposition.  Within 
two  weeks  of  his  landing  at  Stockholm,  the  author  was 
challenged  to  defend  it  in  public  debate,  and  one  of  the 
largest  churches  in  the  capital  was  opened  for  the  oc- 
casion. He  met  the  challenge  in  Christian  meekness, 
and  as  the  discussion  went  on  day  after  day,  the  most 
powerful  champions  of  Pedobaptism  were  found  unable 
to  resist  the  wisdom  and  spirit  with  which  he  spoke. 
When  the  discussion  was  closed,  they  regretted  that  it 
was  ever  begun,  as  the  daily  reports  of  the  public 
prints  had  spread  the  principles  of  the  Baptists  through 
the  kingdom.  Persecution  has  since  been  resorted  to 
again  and  again  to  suppress  them,  but  in  vain.  The 
book  is  still  in  demand,  the  character  of  its  author  is 
respected  more  and  more,  the  power  of  its  scriptural 


Vlll  INTRODUCTION. 


principles  is  still  spreading,  and  Baptist  churhes  are 
springing  up  in  every  part  of  Sweden.  Already  they 
number  ninety-four,  with  over  five  thousand  communi- 
cants. A  history  of  this  work  of  grace  is  just  issued 
by  our  Society. 

Our  last  reason  for  rejoicing  in  the  appearance  of 
this  book  in  our  own  language  and  country,  is  found 
in  the  character  of  the  book  itself.  Its  spirit  is  ex 
cellent.  Its  method  is  the  true  inductive  method,  by 
which  modern  science  has  made  the  profoundest  truths 
of  nature  its  own.  Its  compass  is  sufficient  to  compre- 
hend the  entire  subject  of  inquiry,  to  exhaust  the  evi- 
dence on  both  sides,  and  to  conduct  the  reader  to  a  sat- 
isfactory conclusion  by  patting  him  in  possession  of  the 
whole  argument.  Its  style  is  simple,  lucid,  and  vigorous  ; 
remarkably  so,  we  think,  considering  the  author's  re- 
cent acquaintance  with  our  language.  Its  learning  is 
ample,  thorough,  and  exact.  It  adduces  new  testimonies 
from  Pedobaptist  concessions  not  yet  generally  known 
in  this  country.  Mr.  Wiberg  slights  no  objection,  for  his 
own  reason  and  conscience  had  not  lightly  come  to  Bap- 
tist conclusions.  He  reasons  cautiously  and  clearly,  to 
reach  the  solid  ground  of  truth,  and  to  manifest  it  to 
the  conviction  of  his  readers  in  the  sight  of  God. 

We  especially  invite  to  the  book  the  attention  of  our 
Evangelical  Lutheran  brethren.  It  is  worthy  of  circula- 
tion and  success  everywhere,  for  it  is  full  of  the  truth 
and  spirit  of  Christ.  j.  n.  b. 


PART   I. 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 
CONCERNING   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


SECTION   I. 

BAPTISM    BEFORE    THE    RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIST. 

The  Divine  Mission  of  John  the  Baptist. — The 
beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God.  Mark  i.  1.  There  was  a  man  sent  from 
God,  whose  name  was  John.  John  i.  6.  As  it  is 
written  in  the  prophets  ;  Behold,  I  send  my  messen- 
ger before  thy  face,  who  shall  prepare  thy  way 
before  thee.  Mark  i.  2.  And  this  is  he  that  was 
spoken  of  by  the  prophet  Esaias,  saying,  The  voice 
of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  prepare  ye  the  way 
of  the  Lord,  make  his  path  straight.  Matt.  iii.  3. 
And  many  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to 
the  Lord  their  God.  And  he  shall  go  before  Him 
in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  to  make  ready  a  peo- 
ple prepared  for  the  Lord.  Luke  i.  16, 17.  Now,  the 
word  of  God  came  unto  John,  the  son  of  Zacharias, 

(7) 


8  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


in  the  wilderness.  Luke  iii.  2.  That  he  should  be 
made  manifest  to  Israel,  therefore  I  am  come  bap- 
tizing with  [in]*  water.  He  that  sent  me  to  bap- 
tize with  [in]  water,  the  same  said  unto  me,  Upon 
whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending  and  re- 
maining on  him,  the  same  is  he  which  baptizeth 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  I  saw  and  bare  record, 
that  this  is  the  Son  of  God.  John  i.  31-34. 

The  Preaching  of  John  the  Baptist. — In  those 
days  came  John  the  Baptist,  preaching  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Judea.  And  saying,  Repent  ye,  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.  Matt.  iii.  1,  2.  And 
he  came  into  all  the  country  about  Jordan,  preach- 
ing the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of 
sins.  Luke  iii.  3.  John  preached  the  baptism  of 
repentance  to  the  people  of  Israel.  Acts  xiii.  24. 
Saying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should  believe  on 
Him  who  should  come  after  hini,  that  is,  on  Christ 
Jesus.  Acts  xix.  4.  When  he  saw  many  of  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees  come  to  his  baptism,  he 
said  unto  them,  0  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath 
warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ?  Bring 
forth,  therefore,  fruits  meet  for  repentance.  And 
think  not  to  say  within  yourselves,  We  have  Abra- 
ham to  our  Father  :  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God  is 
able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abra- 
ham.    And  now  also  the  axe  is  laid  unto  the  root 

*  Words  thus  placed  within  brackets  are  corrections  made  in 
accordance  with  the  original. 


Before  the  resurrection'  of  christ.    9 


of  the  trees :  therefore  every  tree  which  bringeth 
not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn  down,  and  cast  into 
the  fire.  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  [in]  water, 
unto  repentance :  but  He  that  cometh  after  me  is 
mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to 
bear:  He  shall  baptize  you  with  [in]  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  fire.  Whose  fan  is  in  His  hand,  and  He 
will  thoroughly  purge  his  floor  and  gather  his  wheat 
into  the  garner :  but  he  will  burn  up  the  chaff  in 
unquenchable  fire.  Matt.  iii.  7-12.  Compare  Mark 
i.  4-8  ;  Luke  iii.  3-18  ;  and  John  i.  25-28. 

John's  Baptism. — And  there  went  out  unto  him 
all  the  land  of  Judea  and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and 
were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of  Jordan,  con- 
fessing their  sins.  Mark  i.  5.  Compare  Matt.  iii. 
5,  6. 

John  truly  baptized  you  with  [in]  water  ;  but  ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  [in]  the  Holy  Ghost  not 
many  days  hence.  Acts  i.  5.  Wherefore,  of  these 
men  which  have  companied  with  us,  all  the  time 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  us,  be- 
ginning from  the  baptism  of  John  unto  that  same 
day  that  He  was  taken  up  from  us,  must  one  be 
ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  His  resurrec- 
tion. Acts  i.  22.  That  word,  I  say,  ye  know,  which 
was  published  throughout  all  Judea,  and  began 
from  Galilee,  after  the  baptism  which  John  preached. 
Acts  x.  37.  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  how  that  He  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with 


10  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


[in]  water ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  [in]  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Acts  xi.  16.  He  (Apollos)  spake 
and  taught  diligently  the  things  of  the  Lord,  know- 
ing only  the  baptism  of  John.  Acts  xviii.  25. 

The  Baptism  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. — Then 
cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John 
to  be  baptized  of  him.  But  John  forbade  him, 
saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and 
comest  thou  to  me  ?  And  Jesus  answering,  said 
unto  him,  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now  :  for  thus  it  becom- 
eth  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness.  Then  he  suffered 
Him.  And  Jesus,  when  He  was  baptized,  went 
up  straightway  out  of  the  water :  and  lo,  the 
heavens  were  opened  unto  Him,  and  he  saw  the 
Spirit  of  God  descending  like  a  dove,  and  lighting 
upon  Him  :  And  lo,  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying, 
This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased. 
Matt.  iii.  13-11 

And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that  Jesus 
came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized 
of  John  in  Jordan.  And  straightway  coming  up 
out  of  the  water,  he  saw  the  heavens  opened,  and 
the  Spirit  like  a  dove  descending  upon  Him.  And 
there  came  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  Thou  art 
my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.  Mark 
i.  9-11.  Compare  Luke  iii.  21,  22;  John  i. 
28-34. 

Christ  baptizing,  by  his  Disciples,  in  Judea,  and 


BEFORE  TIIE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.     11 


John  baptizing,  at  the  same  time,  in  JEnon. — After 
these  things  came  Jesus  and  bis  disciples  into  the 
laud  of  Judea ;  and  lie  tarried  with  them  and  bap- 
tized. And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  JEnon,  near 
to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there ;  and 
they  came  and  were  baptized.  Then  there  arose  a 
question  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and  the 
Jews,  about  purifying.  And  they  came  unto  John, 
and  said  unto  him,  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee 
beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  barest  witness,  be- 
hold, the  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him. 
John  iii.  22-26. 

When,  therefore,  the  Lord  knew  how  the  Phari- 
sees had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more 
disciples  than  John — though  Jesus  himself  baptized 
not,  but  His  disciples — He  left  Judea,  and  departed 
again  into  Galilee.  John  iv.  1,  2.  And  (He)  went 
away  again  beyond  Jordan,  into  the  place  where 
John  at  first  baptized.  And  many  believed  on  him 
there.  John  x.  40,  42. 

References  of  Jesus  Christ  to  John — His  Bap- 
tism and  Success. — And  when  the  messengers  of 
John  were  departed,  He  began  to  speak  unto  the 
people  concerning  John,  What  went  ye  out  into 
the  wilderness  for  to  see  ?  A  prophet  ?  Yea,  I 
say  unto  you,  and  more  than  a  prophet.  This  is 
he,  of  whom  it  is  written,  Behold,  I  send  my  mes- 
senger before  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  thy 
way  before  thee.   Luke  vii.  24-2T.     Verily,  I  say 


12  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


unto  you,  among  them  that  are  bora  of  women, 
there  has  not  risen  a  greater  than  John  the  Baptist : 
notwithstanding,  he  that  is  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  greater  than  he.  And  from  the  days  of 
John  the  Baptist,  until  now,  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by  force. 
Matt.  xi.  11,  12.  The  law  and  the  prophets  were 
until  John  :  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
announced  by  the  Gospel,*  and  every  man  presseth 
into  it.  Luke  xvi.  16. 

And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  I  will 
ask  you  one  question.  The  baptism  of  John,  was 
it  from  heaven,  or  of  men  ?  Answer  me.  Mark  xi. 
29,  30.  Compare  Matt.  xxi.  24-27  ;  Luke  xx. 
3-8. 

And  all  the  people  that  heard  him,  and  the  pub- 
licans, justified  God,  being  baptized  with  the  bap- 
tism of  John.  But  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers  re- 
jected the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves,  being 
not  baptized  of  him.  Luke  vii.  29,  30. 

REMARKS. 

John's  baptism  was  either  under  the  law  or  under 
the  gospel  dispensation.  If  under  the  former,  we 
should  expect  that  the  law  required  it.  But  wThere 
can  such  a  requirement  be  found  in  the  law  ? 

That  John's  baptism  did  not  belong  to  the  Old 

*  Thus  according  to  tho  original. 


BEFORE  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.     13 


Testament,  but  to  the  New,  we  understand  from  the 
following  reasons : 

1.  Our  Saviour  himself  teaches  that  the  New 
Testament  Dispensation  began  with  John,  saying-, 
u  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John  ;  since 
that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  announced  by  the 
gospel,  and  every  man  presseth  into  it."  "From 
the  days  of  John  the  Baptist,  until  now,  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent 
take  it  by  force." 

By  "the  kingdom  of  God*'  and  "the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  we  have  here  to  understand  the  kingdom 
of  Christ,  or  the  Xew  Testament  dispensation. 
This  kingdom  began  just  where  the  law  and  the 
prophets  ended.  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  were 
until  John;"  but  with  him  began  ''the  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  which,  from  that  point  of  time,  was  an- 
nounced, not  through  dark  prophecies,  but  "through 
the  gospel."  And  in  this  new  state  of  things  "the 
kingdom  of  heaven  suffered  violence  ;"  that  is,  the 
gospel,  preached  by  John,  our  Saviour  and  his  dis- 
ciples, was  received  by  the  people  with  an  unprece- 
dented eagerness,  and  with  a  faith  that  forced  them, 
for  Christ's  sake,  to  forsake  all  things,  and  com- 
mence an  entirely  new  life.  Had  the  ministry  of 
John  not  been  within  the  Xew  Testament  dispensa- 
tion, or  "the  kingdom  of  heaven,''  how  could  this 
kingdom  be  said  to  have  suffered  violence  "from 
his  day  f 

2.  John's  baptism  was  sanctioned  by  our  Saviour 

2 

\ 


1-i  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


as  a  New  Testament  ordinance,  being  himself  bap- 
tized by  John.  It  is  evident  that  our  Saviour,  by 
submitting  himself  to  the  baptism  of  John,  would 
honor  and  sanction  both  baptism  in  general,  and 
especially  the  baptism  of  John,  as  an  important 
divine  institution  belonging  to  the  New  Testament 
dispensation.  Some  believe  that  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  himself  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Christian 
ordinance,  supposing  that  he  was  baptized  as  a 
priest.  But  this  is  an  error.  Christ  could  not  be 
baptized  as  a  Jewish  priest,  for  he  did  not  belong 
to  the  tribe  consecrated  to  the  priesthood.  In 
Heb.  vii.  14,  Paul  says,  "It  is  evident  that  our 
Lord  sprang  out  of  Juda,  of  which  tribe  Moses 
spake  nothing  concerning  the  priesthood."  And 
again,  in  Heb.  viii.  4,  "If  He  were  on  earth,  he 
should  not  be  a  priest"' — he  could  not  be  a  Jewish 
priest.  Of  course,  no  statute  of  the  Mosaic  law 
touched  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  who  "  pertained 
to  another  tribe,  of  which  no  man  gave  attendance 
to  the  altar."  Heb.  viii.  13.  Christ's  baptism, 
therefore,  could  not  be  a  Jewish  ordinance.  Indeed, 
we  must  have  a  far  stronger  evidence  that  Christ's 
baptism  did  not  belong  to  the  New  Dispensation, 
before  we  part  with  the  consoling  conviction  that 
we  are  baptized  with  the  same  baptism  as  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  himself. 

3.  John's  baptism  was  identified  with  that  bap- 
tism which  Christ,  through  his  disciples,  himself 
gave.     For  John  still  continued  to  baptize  after  lie 


BEFORE  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.      1, 


had  boon  informed  that  Jesus  baptized  ;  which  the 
Scriptures  relate  in  an  approving-  way  :  John  iii. 
22-26  ;  iv.  1.  But  this  would  have  been  to  preach 
two  different  baptisms  as  binding  during  the  same 
time,  if  John's  baptism  had  not  been  the  same  as 
that  of  Jesus.  And  in  what  an  awkward  dilemma 
would  that  have  placed  the  scrupulous  Jews,  who, 
in  a  sense  of  their  sins,  desired  to  be  baptized  ? 
Could  we  charge  the  God  of  infinite  wisdom  with 
being  the  author  of  such  a  confusion  ? 

4.  John's  baptism  icas  the  same  with  that  of  the 
Apostles,  even  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  and  faith 
whereunto  he  baptized.  For  it  reads,  Mark  i.  4, 
that  John  "  preached  the  baptism  of  repentance  for 
the  remission  of  sins" — the  same  terms  which  are 
used  to  describe  the  baptism  of  the  Apostles,  Acts 
ii.  38,  "Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you 
for  the  remission  of  sins."  John  said  to  the  people 
that  they  should  believe  on  Jesus  Christ,  and  ex- 
claimed, "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world :"  the  same  was  in  sub- 
stance the  preaching  of  the  Apostles. 

This  doctrine  is  not  at  variance  with  that  utter- 
ance of  John,  "  I  have  baptized  you  with  [in] 
water ;  but  He  shall  baptize  you  with  [in]  the  Holy 
Ghost."  For  in  those  words  John  does  not  com 
pare  his  water  baptism  with  water  baptism  when 
given  by  Christ,  who  never  baptized  any  one  iii 
water.  John  iv.  2.  Neither  does  he  compare  his 
own*  baptism  with  that   of  the  Apostles  :   but  he 


16  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM, 


compares  his  own  person  and  ministry  with  the 
person  and  office  of  Christ.  He  could  only  perform 
the  external  act  of  baptizing  in  water,  but  could 
not  give  the  Spirit,  whom  He  alone  could  give  who 
should  come  after  him.  In  the  same  way  Paul 
also  speaks,  saying,  "  I  have  planted,  Apollos 
watered :  but  God  gave  the  increase.  So,  then, 
neither  is  he  that  planteth  any  thing,  neither  he 
that  watereth  ;  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase." 
1  Cor.  iii.  6,  7. 

Xor  is  this  doctrine  at  variance  with  these  words 
of  Christ :  "  He  that  is  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  greater  than  he."  For  this  phrase  does 
not  imply  that  John  was  entirely  excluded  from 
that  kingdom.  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven"  was  at 
his  time  already  present;  for  at  this  very  time,  it 
"suffered  violence,  and  the  violent  took  it  by  force." 
But  it  was  also  a  future  kingdom,  inasmuch  as  it 
had  not  yet  been  manifested  in  its  more  mature 
state.  As  such  it  came  "  in  demonstration  of  the 
Spirit  and  of  power"  at  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when 
the  Apostles  wrere  reminded  of  all  those  things 
which  Christ  had  taught  them,  which  they  had  not 
then  fully  comprehended,  but  which  now  were  re- 
vealed unto  them  in  their  spiritual  sense.  Before 
that  time  Peter  could  not  agree  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  in  the  stead  of 
sinners  ;  but  on  this  occasion  he  preached,  enlight- 
ened by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  glorious  doctrine  of 
the  atonement  of  Christ  in  all  its  clearness.     In 


BEFORE  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.     17 


the  same  way  John,  though  ''greater  than  all  the 
prophets"  as  to  the  dignity  of  his  ministry,  yet  was 
less  than  the  least  of  the  followers  of  Christ  after 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  in  the  degree  of  his  spiritual 
knowledge  of  Divine  truth.  John's  knowledge  of 
"  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  as  well 
as  his  preaching  and  baptism,  were  in  a  state  of 
childhood ;  but  thence  it  does  not  follow,  that  he, 
with  all  his  work,  did  not  belong  to  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment. 

It  does  not  disagree  with  this  doctrine,  that  the 
baptism  which  John  performed  is  usually  mentioned 
under  some  special  epithet,  as  "John's  baptism," 
or  "the  baptism  of  repentance."  For  the  true 
reason  why  this  baptism  is  called  "John's  baptism," 
is  that  it  was  the  baptism  which  John,  on  the  im- 
mediate command  of  God  (Luke  iii.  2 ;  John  i.  33), 
first  introduced.  It  was  a  new  rite  ;  and  that  a 
new  institution  should  be  designated  by  certain  de- 
scriptive epithets,  is  perfectly  natural.  Again,  the 
reason  why  it  was  called  "the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance," is  that  he  required  repentance  of  every  can- 
didate for  baptism.  But  lie  was  not  only  a  preacher 
of  repentance  ;  he  preached  also,  like  the  Apostles, 
forgiveness  of  sin  through  faith  on  Christ.  Mark  i. 
4  ;  Acts  xix.  4. 

Some  object,  not  only  against  the  baptism  of 
John,  but  also  against  that  administered  under  the 
ministry  of  Christ  himself,  through  his  disciples, 
that  it  cannot  be  valid  Christian  baptism,  since  it 


18  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


was  instituted  before  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and, 
consequently,  previous  to  the  introduction  of  the 
New  Testament  dispensation.  To  this  we  answer  : 
If  the  New  Testament  dispensation  did  not  begin 
until  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  baptism 
administered  before  this  point  of  time  was  not 
valid  as  a  Christian  baptism,  then  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per cannot  be  valid  as  a  Christian  ordinance,  as 
that  also  was  instituted  previous  to  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ.  Thence  it  follows,  either 
that  Christian  baptism  was  instituted  already  before 
the  resurrection  of  Christ,  or  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
must  have  been  instituted  after  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  in  order  that  the  two  ordinances  might  have 
equal  validity  as  Christian  institutions. 

Finally,  it  may  be  observed  that  the  commission 
of  Christ  concerning  baptism,  recorded  in  Matt. 
xxviii.  19,  20,  did  not  annul  the  baptism  of  John 
and  the  disciples  of  Christ  previous  to  Pentecost. 
For  the  fact  that  Jesus,  previous  to  his  resurrec- 
tion, commanded  his  disciples  to  baptize  (John  iii. 
22,  26  ;  iv.  1,  2),  shows  that  the  commission  which 
he  afterward,  at  his  Ascension,  gave  to  his  Apostles, 
was  only  a  repetition  and  enlargement  of  his  former 
commandment.  The  baptism  of  John,  and  of 
Christ  himself,  by  his  disciples,  was  to  be  restricted 
to  "the  house  of  Israel"  (Matt.  x.  5,  6)  ;  but  the 
commission  extends  it  to  "all  nations."  The  ex- 
press commandment  to  baptize  "into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit," 


BEFORE  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.     19 


cannot  invalidate  the  baptism  of  John  and  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ.  For  suppose  that  neither  John 
nor  the  disciples  of  Christ  did  baptize  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
yet  they,  undoubtedly,  baptized  into  the  faith  of 
the  Sacred  Trinity.  See,  concerning  John,  Matt. 
iii.  11,  16,  17  ;  Mark  i.  7,  8;  Luke  iii.  22  ;  John  i. 
32-34 — from  which  passages  it  is  evident  that  John 
himself  both  knew  and  witnessed  to  his  hearers  of 
God,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Indeed,  we  have  in  the  Xew  Testament  no  single 
instance  recorded  where  this  ivhole  name  was  re- 
peated at  baptism.  On  the  other  hand,  we  meet 
with  the  simple  expressions,  "to  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  "to  be  baptized  into 
Christ,"  etc.  See  Acts  viii.  16,  ii.  38,  xix.  5; 
Rom.  vi.  3  ;  Gal.  iii.  27.  Xow,  if  the  baptism  of 
John  is  not  a  Christian  baptism,  because  he  is  not 
recorded  to  have  baptized  into  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  then  no  baptism  which  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment records  is  a  Christian  baptism. 

Xow,  when  it  is  proved  that  both  John's  baptism 
and  the  previous  baptism  administered  by  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  were  in  substance  the  same  with 
that  baptism  administered  after  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  it  follows  that  these  previous  baptisms,  in 
regard  to  the  character  of  the  subjects,  and  also  in 
regard  to  the  mode,  are  an  example  to  all  believers, 
binding  upon  them  in  all  times.     We  may  still  say 


20  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


with  our  Lord,  "  Thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all 
righteousness." 

The  persons  whom  John  baptized  are  designated 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  few  words  :  "  They  came 
from  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and  were  all  baptized 
by  him,  confessing  their  sins."  As  this  is  all  that 
•is  said  of  them,  and  it-is  said  of  them  all;  and  as 
John  at  the  same  time  rejected  impenitent  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees  froi»  his  baptism,  and  exhorted 
them  to  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance,  it 
follows  that  he  baptized  none  but  those  whom  he 
considered  as  true  penitents. 

Further,  as  the  baptism  of  John  was  a  baptism 
of  repentance,  that  is,  a  baptism  which  required  re- 
pentance, aud  likewise  a  baptism  wherein  the  candi- 
dates confessed  their  sins,  he  could  in  no  wise  have 
baptized  infants,  because  they  neither  are  able  to 
repent  nor  to  confess  their  sins. 

John  not  only  required  a  confession  of  repent- 
ance, and  a  state  of  mind  which  testified  the  genu- 
ineness of  repentance  in  the  candidates,  but  added 
further,  as  though  with  an  express  design  to  remove 
from  their  minds  all  idea  of  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism being  connected  with  hereditary  qualifications, 
"Begin  not  to  say  within  yourselves,  "We  have 
Abraham  to  our  Father :  for  I  say  unto  you,  that 
God  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children 
unto  Abraham."  John  means  to  teach  us,  by  this 
declaration,  that,  as  circumcision  belonged  to  the 
whole  carnal   Israel,   so  baptism  belongs  only  to 


BEFORE  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.     21 


spiritual  Israelites,  who  "  walk  in  the  steps  of  the 
faith  of  Abraham,"  and  not  to  J.lie  whole  of  so- 
called  Christendom. 

If  it  be  objected,  "  Those  to  whom  John  spoke 
were  adults,"  we  answer,  let  it  be  so.  Yet  the 
words  of  John  show,  at  all  events,  that  the  nature 
of  the  Christian  church  is  not  the  same  with  that 
of  the  congregation  of  Israel  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Pharisees  icere  members  of  the  congregation 
of  the  Old  Testament  by  mere  virtue  of  carnal  de- 
scent from  Abraham  ;  but  they  could  not  become 
members  of  the  church  of  Christ  without  repentance 
and  faith.  Therefore,  it  appears,  from  the  nature 
of  the  church  of  Christ  compared  with  that  of  the 
Jewish  congregation  of  the  Old  Testament,  that 
the  law  regarding  admission  to  that  church  is  not 
the  same  with  that  lawVhich  prescribed  that  all 
the  male  descendants  of  Abraham  should  be  received 
among  the  covenant  people  of  the  Old  Testament 
by  means  of  circumcision. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  Christ  did  not  make 
disciples  by  baptizing.  To  make  disciples,  and  to 
baptize,  are  plainly  represented  as  different  actions  : 
for  "Jesus  made  more  disciples  than  John" 
though  he  baptized  not  any  of  them  with  his  own 
hands.  It  deserves  also  special  attention,  that  the 
process  of  making  disciples  was  first  in  order,  and 
then  baptism:  for  Jesus  "made  and  baptized  dis- 
ciples." See  John  iv.  1,  2.  As  this  is  all  the 
Evangelists  have  recorded  respecting  the  baptism 


22  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


of  Christ  during  all  Lis  life,  this  is,  consequently, 
all  in  which  the  practice  of  Christ  is  given  for  the 
guidance  of  his  people.  Therefore,  whatsoever  may 
be  said  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  it  is  evident  that 
it  has  no  authority  from  our  Saviour's  own  ex- 
ample. 

The  fact  that  our  Saviour,  as  did  John,  first 
made  disciples,  and  then  baptized  them,  entirely 
overthrows  the  position  often  taken  by  Pedobap- 
tists,  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  Christ  to  give 
his  Apostles  any  special  command  to  baptize  in- 
fants, because,  as  Jews,  they  had  always  been  ac- 
customed to  see  children  received  into  the  Jewish 
community  both  by  circumcision  and  by  the  Jewish 
proselyte  baptism.  For  it  is  clear  that  as  they  had, 
as  Jews,  been  accustomed  to  see  both  adults  and 
children  received  into  the  Jewish  community  by 
means  of  circumcision,  so  now  they  were,  in  the 
new  state  of  things  which  commenced  by  the  preach- 
ing and  baptism  of  John  the  Baptist,  accustomed 
to  see  only  such  received  into  the  visible  kingdom 
of  Christ,  by  means  of  baptism,  as  repented  and 
believed  in  Christ,  and  had  thus  previously  been 
made  disciples.  And  as  to  the  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism,  from  that  nothing  can  be  inferred  in  re- 
gard to  Christian  baptism. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ,  Some  be- 
lieve that  this  baptism  among  the  Jews  did  not 
originate  until  the  seventh  century  after  Christ; 


BEFORE  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.     23 


at  any  rate,  all  learned  and  candid  Pedobaptists  in 
our  time  acknowledge  that  the  existence  of  a  prose- 
lyte baptism  in  the  time  of  Christ  cannot  be  proved. 
We  need  only  quote  the  testimony  of  the  world- 
renowned  Church  historian,  Dr.  A.  Xeander.  He 
says  : 

"  Since  the  elaborate  work  of  Schneckenberger* 
has  appeared,  no  one  will  pretend  that  he  can 
prove  the  existence  of  proselyte  baptism  in  the  time 
of  Christ,  "f 

That  which  has  been  called  proselyte  baptism  was 
essentially  different  from  Christian  baptism.  It 
was  nothing  more  than  one  of  the  many  self-immer- 
sions and  ablutions  commanded  in  the  law,  and 
magnified  by  superstition  into  a  distinct  rite.  The 
Jewish  proselytes  immersed  themselves.  And 
though  both  adults  and  children  performed  it, 
where  parents  were  admitted  into  the  Jewish  com- 
munity, yet  none  of  the  descendants  of  such  parents 
afterwards  used  it.  In  all  these  respects  it  was  un- 
like Christian  baptism,  and  therefore  could  not  be 
the  pattern  of  it  J 

*  "Ueber  das  Alter  der  Jiidisb.cn  Proselytentaufe." 

f  In  Xeander's  Lectures. 

J  To  tbis  we  add  tbe  following  remarks  from  a  Baptist  au- 
thor : 

"  1.  He  who  gave  the  commission,  Go  ye,  therefore,  make  all 
nations  disciples,  baptizing  them,  etc.,  was  a  Jew,  who  had  been 
himself  circumcised  in  infancy,  but  baptized  in  manhood,  and 
who  therefore  did  not  regard  circumcision  and  baptism  as  sig- 
nifying the  same  thing. 


24  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


It  is  said,  that  "  all  the  people,"  and  especially 
''the  Publicans,"  who  heard  John,  "justified  God," 
that  is,  gave  their  cordial  assent  to  the  method  of 
God  in  his  ministry  and  baptism,  and,  to  testify  it, 
"were  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  John  ;"  while 
they  who  had  a  higher  renown  of  piety,  viz.,  "  the 
Pharisees  and  the  lawyers,  rejected  the  counsel  of 
God  against  themselves,  being  not  baptized  of  him.11 

"2.  Those  who  received  the  commission  were  Jews,  who  had 
themselves  been  in  like  manner  circumcised  in  infancy,  but 
baptized  in  manhood,  on  their  own  personal  profession  of  re- 
pentance and  faith  in  the  approaching  Messiah;  and  who  had 
for  a  long  time  been  actually  employed  by  that  Messiah  himself 
in  making  and  baptizing  disciples  among  Jews  who  had  been 
already  circumcised,  John  iv.  1,  2.  The  work  assigned  them  in 
this  commission  was  precisely  the  same  as  they  had  been  em- 
ployed in,  except  that  it  was  now  extended  to  all  nations,  em- 
braced new  facts  and  discoveries  concerning  the  way  of  salva- 
tion, and  had  the  promise  of  superior  aids  and  qualifications 
from  on  high.  How  was  it  possible,  then,  for  them  to  think 
of  the  law  of  circumcision,  or  the  custom  of  proselyte  lajitism 
(supposing  it  then  existed),  as  suggesting  the  proper  interpreta- 
tion of  the  law  of  Christian  baptism  ?  The  supposition  is  to  the 
last  degree  improbable.  Their  past  practice  was  the  natural, 
and  the  only  natural,  mode  of  understanding  their  present  com- 
mission. In  their  own  nation  they  had  already,  under  the  eye 
and  authority  of  the  Lord,  made  disciples  and  baptized  them ; 
they  were  now  to  do  the  same  among  all  nations ;  teaching  them 
also,  to  observe  all  things  ichatsoever  their  Lord  had  commanded 
them.  .  .  .  The  baptism  of  infants,  so  far  from  being  im- 
plied in  the  circumstances  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  when  this 
commission  was  given,  appears  to  be  more  decisively  excluded 
by  those  very  circumstances." — "Baptismal  Balance.''  By  J. 
Newton  Brown.     Philadelphia,  1S53;  pp.  30,  31. 


BEFORE   THE    RESURRECTION    OP    CHRIST 


Our  Saviour  here  clearly  intimates,  that  baptism  is 
a  part  of  "the  counsel  of  God,"  and  that,  so  far  as 
men  neglect  baptism,  so  far  do  they  contemn  and 
reject  the  ivill  and  counsel  of  God  concerning  them- 
selces. 

If  John,  who  was  only  a  man,  was  to  be  esteemed 
so  highly,  and  his  baptism  be  received  so  uncondi- 
tionally as  "the  counsel  of  God,"  that  our  Saviour 
expressed  His  great  displeasure  with  them  who 
neglected  it ;  how  much  more  do  they  incur  the  dis- 
pleasure of  God,  who  neglect  this  holy  ordinance  in 
the  still  more  solemn  form  in  which  we  soon  shall 
find  it  prescribed  by  Him  whose  name  is  written 
"  KIXG  of  Kings  and  LORD  of  Lords  !"  Rev.  xix. 
16.  Surely  we  may  say:  "If  they  escaped  not 
who  refused  Him  that  spake  on  earth,  much  more 
shall  not  we  escape,  if  we  turn  away  from  Him  that 
speaketh  from  heaven  ?"  Heb.  xii.  25. 

Respecting  the  mode  in  which  baptism  was  adminis- 
tered by  John  the  Baptist  and  the  disciples  of  Christ, 
it  is  to  be  observed  : 

1.  The  ordinary  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  bap- 
tizo,  which  expresses  this  mode,  always  is  immerse 
or  dip.  Consequently,  this  word  in  all  the  most 
renowned  versions,  both  ancient  and  modern,  where 
it  has  been  translated  *  has  been  rendered  by  an 

*  In  several  version?,  as  the  English,  French,  Spanish,  &c, 
the  word  baptizo  has  only  heen  transferred  from  the  Greek. 
Thus,  for  example,  it  has  been  changed  in  the  English  to  bap- 
tize, in  the  French  to  bcqitizer,  <fcc. 

3 


26  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM, 


expression  which  signifies  immerse  or  dip.  Tims  it 
is  in  the  most  ancient  translation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  Syriac  Peschito,  made  in  the  second  cen- 
tury;* the  oldest  Latin,  second  or  third  century ; 
the  Coptic,  third  century ;  Ethiopia,  fourth  cen- 
tury ;  Gothic,  fourth  century ;  Armenian,  fifth  cen- 
tury ;  Syriac  Philoxenian,  sixth  century ;  Arabic, 
sixth,  seventeenth,  and  nineteenth  centuries  ;  as  well 
as  the  German,  the  Danish,  the  Swedish,  &c,  of 
the  sixteenth  and  subsequent  centuries.  Thus,  for 
example,  baptizo  has  been  translated  in  the  German 
by  tanfen,  in  Danish  by  dobe,  in  Swedish  by  dopa, 
which  words  signify  to  dip  or  immerse. 

Respecting  the  first  of  these  words,  Dr.  Luther 
writes  :  "  Taufe  (baptism)  is  in  the  Greek  called 
baptisma,  in  the  Latin  mersio,  that  is,  when  we 
totally  dip  any  thing  in  water,  and  it  runs  together 
over  it.  And  it  ought  to  be  so,  and  it  were  right 
that  we,  according  to  the  import  of  the  word,  should 
immerse  in  water  or  taufen,  and  again  draw  up 
from  thence  the  child,  or  whosoever  is  baptized. 
For  undoubtedly  the  word  taufe  is  derived  from 
tie/  (deep),  because   one  dips  into  water  what  he 

*  It  is  worthy  of  special  notice,  that  this  translation,  which  is 
acknowledged  to  he  one  of  the  most  accurate  versions  of  the  New 
Testament  extant,  was  made  in  the  very  country  where  the  Apos- 
tles lived  and  wrote,  and  where  both  the  Syriac  and  the  Greek 
were  constantly  used,  and  perfectly  understood.  It  was,  conse- 
quently, executed  by  those  who  understood  and  spoke  both  lan- 
guages precisely  as  the  sacred  writers  themselves  understood  and 
spoke  them. 


BEFOUL   THE   RESURRECTION    OF    CHRIS 


taufet  (baptizes).  This,  the  meaning  of  baptism 
also  requires  ;  for  it  signifies  that  the  old  man  and 
the  sinful  birth  of  flesh  and  blood  shall  be  totally 
drowned  by  the  grace  of  God.  Therefore  we  ought 
" fully  to  meet  the  signification,  and  (jive  a  right 
perfect  sign."* 

2.  If  now  we  consider  that  the  proper  significa- 
tion of  baptize  always  is  immerse,  we  shall,  by  com- 
paring the  signification  of  the  word  with  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  it  occurs,  easily  understand 
in  what  mode  baptism  was  performed  by  John  the 
Baptist,  as  well  as  by  the  Apostles  and  the  first  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  and  always  is  to  be  performed. 

3.  If  John  had  baptized  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling a  little  water,  one  cannot  reasonably  suppose 
that  he  would  have  obliged  the  people  to  resort  a 
distance  of  many  miles  to  Jordan  ;  he  would  then 
surely  have  baptized  in  every  village  or  town  where 
souls  through  his  preaching  had  been  converted. 
For  what  need  would  there  have  been  for  John  to 
draw  "  all  the  people"  to  great  quantities  of  water, 
if  the  baptism  had  not  been  performed  by  immersion  ? 
Only  a  very  little  water  would  have  been  required, 
if  the  validity  of  baptism  had  not,  in  the  least,  de- 
pended on  the  mode. 

4.  Furthermore,  we  have  to  observe,  that  John 
not  only  chose  the  river  Jordan  for  his  baptism,  but 
we  also  read  :   "  They  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jor- 

*  Watch's  edition  of  Luther's  Works,  torn.  10,  p.  2592. 


28  christian  baptism:. 


dan,"  and  "  in  the  river  of  Jordan."  The  idea, 
that  John  would  oblige  great  numbers  to  go  down 
into  the  water  of  a  river  only  in  order  to  sprinkle 
them  in  the  face,  or  pour  upon  their  heads  a  little 
water,  is  too  absurd  to  be  cherished  by  any  think- 
ing Christian. 

5.  When  it  is  recorded  that  John  baptized  in 
Enon,  "because  there  was  much  water  there,"  the 
reason  why  John  chose  for  his  baptism  Enon,  a 
place  richly  supplied  with  water,  plainly  indicates 
immersion.  Those  who  practice  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling in  our  days  do  not  usually  seek  out  rivers,  or 
places  where  there  is  much  water,  for  baptism  ;  and 
if  it  should  happen  that  they  administer  the  rite  in 
such  places,  it  would  not  be  because  of  the  much 
water  there. 

6.  In  regard,  especially,  to  the  baptism  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour,  the  construction  in  the  Greek 
most* clearly  informs  us  that  He  actually  was  em- 
mersed  in  Jordan.  For  when  we  read  in  our  ver- 
sion, "  Jesus  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan,"  it 
reads,  according  to  the  original,  "  Jesus  was  dipped 
of  John  into  Jordan,"  (ebaptisthe  hypo  Joannou 
eis  ton  Jordanen).  On  this  phrase  the  learned  Luth- 
eran commentator,  Dr.  H.  A.  TV.  Meyer,  remarks : 
"  It  expresses  the  idea  of  immersion,"*  an  acknow- 
ledgment which  no  Greek  scholar  will  be  able  con- 


*  H.  A.  W.   Meyer's  Commentary,  Gb'ttingen,  1846,  on  Mark 
i.  9.  Compare  "Winer  in  the  New  Testament  Idioms. 


BEFORE  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.     29 


scienti  y.     Again,  when  it  reads :  "And 

Jesus,  when  lie  was  baptized,  went  up  straightway 

out  o/the  water"  (Matt.  iii.  16),  what  unprejudiced 
reader,  even  of  our  version  can  escape  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  Lord  Jesus  was  actually  baptized  by 
immersion  ? 

7.  Xow  let  us  ask,  What  disciple  of  Christ  would 
not  follow  Him  when  He  has  condescended  to  go  be- 
fore us  with  His  own  example  ?  Our  Lord  and  Mas- 
ter saw  best,  in  His  infinite  condescension,  to  honor 
and  sanction,  with  His  own  example,  this  holy  law 
of  baptism,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
They  were  both  holy  laws  to  be  given  to  His  church ; 
but  He  foreknew  that  some  professors  of  His  doc- 
trine would  be  very  reluctant  to  obey  them.  There- 
fore He  added  to  His  express  commands  the  weight 
of  His  own  example,  and  would  by  that  means  say, 
"  If  you  are  not  able  to  understand  my  wordst  then 
understand  my  act;  and  if  my  commandments  alone 
cannot  induce  you  to  obedience,  oh,  if  you  cherish 
any  love  toward  me,  follow  my  footsteps  !" 

8.  Our  Saviour,  however,  does  not  only  speak  to 
us  most  forcibly  by  His  own  act,  but  He  unites  with 
it  this  impressive  instruction  and  exhortation  : 
"Thus  it  becometh  US  to  fulfill  all  righteousness." 
Matt.  iii.  15.  That  He  by  the  word  us  has  refer- 
ence not  only  to  Himself,  but  to  John,  and  with 
him  all  believers,  is  a  commonly  received  truth. 
Our  Saviour,  consequently,  means  to  say  :  "  We 
ought  to  observe  the  whole  will  of  our  Father  and 

3* 


30  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


all  His  appointments ;  in  the  first  place  it  becomes 
myself,  as  your  Head  and  Master,  then  you  as  my 
members,  my  people,  and  my  servants." 

TESTIMONIES   OE   DISTINGUISHED   THEOLOGIANS. 

Dr.  Knapp,  one  of  the  most  celebrated  divines 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  says:  "We  are  not  to 
consider  that  baptism  which  Jesus  (by  His  disciples 
and  Apostles)  administered  as  distinct  in  its  own 
nature  and  whole  kind  from  that  of  John.  For 
such  an  opinion  is  opposed  by  the  authority  of 
Christ  himself  and  his  Apostles  ;  and  if  we  regard 
these,  we  must  confess  that  the  baptism  of  each — 
of  the  harbinger,  and  the  Messiah — was  one  and  the 
same  institute  of  God  himself  (John  i.  33  ;  Matt, 
xxi.  25  ;  Acts  i.  22)  ;  and  that  the  design  of  each 
in  administering  it  was  one,  inasmuch  as  it  had  the 
same  regard  to  the  repentance  of  the  candidates 
and  their  faith  in  Christ,  whether  about  to  come  or 
having  come  already.  John  i.  31;  iii.  27;  Matt. 
xi.  12  ;  Mark  i.  4  ;  Luke  iii.  3  ;  x.  2.4  ;  Acts  xix. 
4.  After  John  had  known  Jesus  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah, he  sent  his  own  disciples  expressly  to  him  who 
had  come,  as  the  one  who  was  the  Lamb  of  God 
that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  (John  i.  29- 
36  ;  Acts  xix.  4)  ;  but  did  not  himself  cease  to 
baptize  (John  iii.  23  ;  vi.  1),  although  Jesus,  while 
John  was  alive  and  at  liberty,  commanded  to  bap- 
tize by  His  own  authority,  and  in  His  own  name 


BEFORE  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST     31 


John  iii.  22-20;  iv.  1,  2  John  cooperated  har- 
moniously ;  and  each,  in  the  most  friendly  manner, 
bore  testimony  to  the  character  of  the  other.  John 
iii.  2G-3T  ;  Matt.  xxi.  25;  xi.  1  ;  xvii.  11.  Hence, 
among  the  Apostles  and  others  who  had  already 
been  baptized  by  John  (Acts  xviii.  25),  no  one,  so 
far  as  we  have  any  account,  who  professed  his  faith 
to  have  been  placed  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  was 
baptized  anew.* 

Dr.  Erskine  :f  "  John's  baptism  was  termed  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  and  baptism  to  repentance, 
because  he  required  of  ALL  whom  he  admitted  to 
baptism,  a  profession  of  repentance,  and  exhorted 
them  to  such  a  conduct  as  would  demonstrate  their 
repentance  genuine. ''J 

Thomas  Scott  :  "  It  does  not  appear  that  any 
but  adults  were  baptized  by  John  .  .  .  adult 
Jews,  professing  repentance  and  a  disposition  to 
become  the  Messiah's  subjects,  were  the  ONLY 
PERSONS  whom  John  admitted  to  baptism. "§ 

Burkitt  :  "John's  baptism  was  a  baptism  of 
repentance,  of  which  infants  were  incapable."j| 

Calvin  :  "  The  word  baptizo  signifies  to  im- 
merse, and  the  rite  of  immersion  was  performed  by 

*  Pcripta  Vario  Argument!,  maximam  partem  Exegetici  et 
Historici,  on  1  John  v.  6-11. 

f  All  the  divines,  who  are  only  mentioned  thus  in  this  book, 
without  any  further  description,  are  Pedobaptiste. 

%  Booth's  "  Pedobaptism  Examined,"  Ed.  2,  VoL  2,  p.  241. 

§  Commentary  on  Matt.  iii.  b,  6. 

||  Expository  Notes  on  Matt.  xix.  13-15. 


32  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


the  ancient  church."  .  .  .  "  From  these  words, 
John  iii.  23,  it  may  be  inferred  that  baptism  was 
administered  by  John  and  Christ  by  plunging  the 
whole  bochj  under  water,"* 

Otto  Vox  Gerlach:  "  I  baptize  you  in -water : 
the  Greek  word  (baptizo)  properly  signifies  dip. 
Baptism  was  performed  in  the  first  times  of  Christi- 
anity by  immersion  in  water.""}" 

Dr.  Olshausex  :  "  When  Jesus  left  the  city,  He 
approached  to  Jordan,  where  He  baptized,  yet  so 
that  He  remained  in  Judea.  In  the  vicinity  John 
likewise  baptized,  because  deep  water,  adapted  for 
immersion,  was  there."  J 

Dr.  Doddridge:  "Jesus  had  no  sin  to  wash  away, 
yet  He  was  baptized ;  and  God  owned  that  ordi- 
nance so  far  as  to  make  it  the  season  of  pouring  forth 
the  Spirit  upon  Him.  And  where  can  we  expect 
this  sacred  effusion,  but  in  a  conscientious  and 
humble  attendance  upon  divine  appointments  ?"§ 

Polhill  :  "  The  pattern  of  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  is  more  to  me  than  all  the  human  wisdom 
in  the  world.  "j| 

»  Institutiones,  L.  5,  C.  15,  g  2.     Com.  in  Joan.  iii.  23. 

f  Commentary  on  Matt.  iii.  11. 

+  Biblical  Commentary,  Part  1. 

§  Family  Expositor  in  loc. 

I  In  "  The  Scripture  Guide  to  Baptism,1'  by  Pengilly. 


SECTION  II. 

THE    COMMISSION    OF    CHRIST     CONCERNING    BAPTISM. 

This  holy  Commission  is  recorded  by  the  Evange- 
lists Matthew  and  Mark,  and  reads,  in  a  verbal 
translation  of  the  original,  thus  : 

Matt,  xxviii.  10-20 — Going  out  make  all  nations 
disciples,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you  ;  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  all  days, 
to  the  end  of  the  world. 

Mark  xvi.  15,  1G — Going  out  into  all  the  world 
preach  the  Gospel  to  the  whole  creation.  He  who 
shall  believe  and  be  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he 
who  shall  not  believe  shall  be  condemned. 

REMARKS. 

In  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  according  to  our  version,  it 
reads:  "Teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  &c., 
teaching  them,  &c."  Pedobaptists  are  used  to 
allege,  in  support  of  their  doctrine,  that  the  words 
in  the  original  do  not  read  as  we  have  given  them, 
but  literally  thus  :  "  Make  all  nations  disciples,  bap- 
tizing them,  &c.,  teaching  them,  &c."     And  they 

(33) 


S-i  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


pretend  that  the  words  of  the  original,  by  conse- 
quence, are  properly  to  be  interpreted  thus  :  "Make 
all  nations  disciples  in  that  ye  baptize  them,  &c, 
and  teach  them,  &c.;"  whence  the  import  of  the 
Commission  would  be,  "  that  the  Apostles  and  the 
churches  should  gather  disciples  for  Christ  by  first 
baptizing  and  then  teaching  the  nations." 

It  is  true,  the  Greek  word  matheteusate,  which  in 
our  version  here  is  translated  "  teach,"  properly 
signifies  "make  disciples,"  as  well  as  that  Matt. 
xxviii.  19,  20,  is  rightly  to  be  translated  as  above ; 
but,  notwithstanding,  the  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage by  the  Pedobaptists  appears  to  be  false,  from 
the  following  reasons : 

1.  If  all  nations,  according  to  this  Commission, 
are  to  be  made  disciples  by  first  baptizing  them, 
and  then  teaching  them  to  observe  the  command- 
ments  of  Christ,  then  we  also  are  commanded, 
without  any  previous  preaching  or  instruction,  to 
baptize  all  adults,  as  well  as  new-born  children,  if  we 
can  only  accomplish  it,  whether  by  violence,  fraud,  or 
persuasion.  For  in  the  Commission  the  adults  are 
not  distinguished  from  children,  and  why  should  we 
not  baptize  the  former  on  the  same  principle  as  the 
latter?  But  that  the  Apostles  could  not  have 
received  such  a  command  is  evident.  For  in  the 
first  place,  they  were  not  permitted  to  use  either 
violence  or  fraud  to  promote  the  kingdom  of  Christ ; 
and  secondly,  the  nations  would  not,  without  pre- 
vious knowledge  of  Christ  and  belief  in  Him,  have 


T    E  COMMISSION  OF  CHRIST.  35 


been  willing  to  be  baptized.  Therefore,  to  com- 
mand the  Apostles  to  baptize  the  nations,  before 
they  were  converted,  would  have  been  to  command 
an  absurdity. 

2.  Xone  is  made  a  disciple  of  Christ  by  first  be- 
ing baptized,  and  then  taught  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  He  has  commanded  his  disciples,  that 
is  to  do  good  works;  but  only  by  believing  in  the 
Gospel,  the  glad  tidings  of  the  free  salvation  of 
sinners  through  Christ. 

8.  This  interpretation  is  also  opposed  both  to  the 
example  of  the  Lord  himself — inasmuch  as  He  first 
made  disciples,  and  then  baptized  them  (John  iv. 
1) — and  to  that  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Apos- 
tles, who  first  brought  men  to  repentance  and  faith, 
before  they  baptized  them. 

Thus  it  appears,  on  the  very  face  of  the  Commis- 
sion, even  to  those  who  are  entirely  unacquainted 
with  the  Greek,  that  it  cannot  be  interpreted  in 
that  manner.  But  such  an  interpretation,  as  it  is 
or  posed  to  the  whole  doctrine  of  Christ,  so  it  has 
also  no  foundation  in  the  original;  for  this  both, 
indeed,  allows  and  requires  a  contrary  interpreta- 
tion, viz.:  that  we  are  in  the  first  place,  to  make 
disc;ples  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel;  in  the 
second  place,  to  baptize  the  disciples;  and  thirdly, 
to  teach  the  baptized  disciples  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  Christ  has  commanded. 

The  Greek  text  requires  the  interpretation  that 
we  are  first  to  make  disciples  by  previous  preaching 


36  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


and  instruction.  For  the  proper  signification  of  the 
word  fnatheteuo,  which  expresses  the  commandment 
to  make  disciples,  is  to  disciple  by  previous  preach- 
ing or  instruction,  and  no  single  reliable  instance 
has  yet  been  produced,  where  this  word  signifies  to 
disciple  by  baptizing,  or  in  any  other  way,  without 
including  previous  teaching.  In  consequence,  the 
most  pious,  learned,  and  distinguished  divines  among 
the  Pedobaptists  themselves  have  acknowledged, 
by  common  consent,  both  that  the  word  malheteuo 
here  signifies  to  make  disciples  by  precious  instruc- 
tion, and  that  the  subjects  of  baptism,  according  to 
the  import  of  this  Commission,  are  first  to  be  made 
disciples,  before  they  are  baptized. 

PEDOBAPTIST    TESTIMONIES. 

John  Gerhard,  the  Lutheran  divine,  alike  cele- 
brated for  piety  and  learning,  thus  testifies  : 

"By  Plutarch,  in  the  Life  of  Socrates,  mathe- 
teuein  signifies  with  the  dative  to  be  a  disciple  and 
hearer;  but  in  this  place  (Matt,  xxviii.  19)  it  is 
used  with  the  accusative,  and  signifies  the  very  in- 
struction or  the  act  of  teaching.  The  Syriac  trans- 
lator* has  thahnad,  teach,  whence  thalmid,  disciple, 
is  derived.  In  the  passive  sense  it  is  used  for  cate- 
cheisthai,  which  is  to  be  instructed  or,  as  it  were, 
initiated  in  the  first  principles  of  any  doctrine. 
When,  therefore,  Christ  commands  the  Apostles 
matheteuein  ta  eihne  (make  disciples  of  the  nations), 

*  Viz.  oft.be  New  Testament. 


THE  COMMISSION  OF  CHRIST.  37 


lie  commands  them  to  teach  the  articles  of  the 
Christian  faith;  and  such  as  embrace  those  by  a 
simple  obedience  of  faith,  become  the  thalmidim, 
mathetai,  disciples  of  Christ,  or,  as  we  would  say, 
Chris 

Calvin:  "Because  Christ  requires  teaching 
before  baptizing,  and  will  have  believers  only 
admitted  to  baptism,  baptism  dues  not  seem  to  be 
rightly  administered,  except  faith  precede. "f 

Grotius  :  "  Seeing  there  are  two  kinds  of  teach- 
ing, one  by  way  of  introduction  to  the  first  prin- 
ciples, the  other  by  way  of  more  perfect  instruction, 
the  former  seems  to  be  intended  by  the  word  mathe- 
teuein  ;  for  that  is,  as  it  were,  to  initiate  into  disci- 
pline, and  is  to  go  before  baptism  ;  the  later  is  in- 
tended by  the  word  didaskein,  which  is  here  placed 
after  baptism. rt 

Dr.  Barrow:  "What  the  action  itself  enjoined 
is,  what  the  manner  and  form  thereof,  is  apparent 
by  the  words  of  our  Lord's  institution  :  '  Going 
forth,'  saith  He,  'teach,  or  disciple,  all  nations, 
baptizing  them.'  The  action  is  baptizing  or  im- 
mersing in  water  ;  the  object  thereof,  those  persons, 
of  any  nation,  whom  His  ministers  can  by  their  in- 
struction and  persuasion  render  disciples — that 
is,  such  as  do  sincerely  believe  the  truth  of  hisdoc- 

*  liarmonia  Er.,  Genera,  ZVIDCXXYIIL,  torn.  1,  part  2,  p. 
349. 

f  Harmonia  Ev.  Comment.,  ad.  loe. 
\   Annotations  in  loc. 

4 


38  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


trine,  and  seriously  resolve  to  obey  His  command- 
ments."* 

Venema  :  "  '  Go,'  says  our  Lord  to  the  Apostles, 
1  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you. "  This  is  an  excellent  passage,  and 
explains  the  whole  nature  of  baptism.  Before  per- 
sons were  baptized,  it  was  necessary  for  them  to 
believe  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  which  faith 
they  were  to  profess  in  baptism.  For  the  word 
matheteuein,  in  the  style  of  the  Xew  Testament, 
does  not  signify  barely  to  admit  into  a  school  and 
instruction,  but  to  admit  after  the  doctrine  is  be- 
lieved, and  after  a  previous  subjection  to  the 
school.rf 

Dr.  Whitby:  "Matheteuein  here  is  'to  preach 
the  Gospel  to  all  nations,'  and  to  engage  them  to 
believe  it,  in  order  to  their  profession  of  that  faith 
by  baptism  ;  as  seems  apparent,  1.  From  the  parallel 
Commission,  Mark  xvi.  15  :  'Go  preach  the  Gos- 
pel to  every  creature :  he  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved.'  2.  From  the  Scripture 
notion  of  a  disciple,  that  being  still  the  same  as  a 
believer.  If  here  it  should  be  said  that  I  yield  too 
much  to  the  anti-Pedobaptists  by  saying,  that  to 
be  made  disciples  here  is  to  be  taught  to  believe 
in   Christ,    I  desire   any  one  to    tell  me  how  the 

*  Works,  VoL  1,  p.  518,  edit.  1722. 
f  Distertat.  Sac.  L.  2.  c.  14,  \  6. 


THE  COMMISSION  OF  CHPJST.  39 


Apostles  could  matheleuein,  make  a  disciple  of  a 
heathen,  or  an  unbelieving  Jew,  without  being 
teachers  of  them  ;  whether  they  were  not  sent  to 
preach  to  those  that  could  hear,  and  to  teach  them 
to  whom  they  preached,  that  'Jesus  was  the  Christ,' 
and  only  to  baptize  them  when  they  did  believe 
this."* 

Poole's  Coxtixcators  :  "  '  Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations.'  The  Greek  is  matheteusale, 
'make  disciples  of  all  nations  ;'  but  that  must  be  by 
preaching,  and  instructing  them  in  the  principles  of 
the  Christian  faith  ;  and  Mark  expounds  it  by 
telling  us  our  Saviour  said  :  '  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature 
capable  of  hearing  and  receiving  it.'"f 

Richard  Baxter  :  "  Go,  disciple  me  all  nations, 
baptizing  them.  As  for  these  that  say  they  are 
discipled  by  baptizing,  and  not  before  baptizing, 
they  speak  not  the  sense  of  that  text,  nor  that  which 
is  true  or  rational,  if  they  mean  it  absolutely  as  so 
spoken  ;  else  why  should  one  be  baptized  more  than 
another  t  This  is  not  like  some  occasional  historical 
mention  of  baptism  ;  but  it  is  the  very  Commission 
of  Christ  to  His  Apostles  for  preaching  and  baptiz- 
ing, and  purposely  expresseth  their  several  works  in 
their  several  places  and  order.  Their  first  task  is 
by  teaching  to  make  disciples,  who  are  by  Mark 
called  'believers.1     The  second  work  is  to  baptize 

*  Annot.  in  loc.  f   Ibid. 


40  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


them,  whereunto  is  annexed  the  promise  of  their 
salvation.  The  third  work  is  to  teach  them  all 
other  things,  which  are  afterward  to  be  learned  in 
the  school  of  Christ.  To  contemn  this  order  is  to 
renounce  ail  rules  of  order;  for  where  can  we 
expect  to  find  it,  if  not  here  ?  I  profess  my  con- 
science is  fully  satisfied  from  this  text  that  it  is  one 
sort  of  faith,  even  saving,  thai  must  go  before  bap- 
tism, and  the  profession  whereof  the  minister  must 
expect.  "* 

Episcopius  :  "  Perhaps  you  will  object  that 
motheteusate  does  not  signify  properly  to  teach, 
but  to  make  disciples.  Be  it  so  ;  yet  they  could 
not  make  disciples,  but  by  teaching  them,  and  by 
teaching  them  those  things  which  belonged  to  the 
Christian  religion  ;  for  disciple  and  teacher  are 
relatives.  Therefore,  Mark,  xvi.  15,  does  not  use 
matheteuein,  but  keruttcin,  i.  e.,  to  preach  or  teach. 
Besides,  matheteuein,  or  the  Hebrew  thalmad,  does 
not,  in  this  place,  signify  barely  to  teach,  but  to 
teach  so  as  to  gain  disciples,  thalmidim.y-f 

LiMBORCH  :  "  They  could  not  make  disciples  but 
by  teaching.  By  this  instruction  the  disciples  were 
brought  over  to  the  faith  before  they  were  baptized, 
Mark  xvi.  15,  16."  .  .  .  "Hence  also,  our  Lord 
commanded  that  men  should  first  be  taught  and 

*  Disput  of  Right  to  Sac,  pp.  91,  149,  150. 
f  Respons.  ad  Qusest.  37,  pp.  35,  36.     Apud  Episcopii  Opera, 
torn,  i.,  part  2. 


THE    COMMISSION    OF    CHRIST.  41 


brought  over  to  the  faith,  and  after  that  be  baptized. 
Matt  xxviii.  19;   Mark  xvi.  15  16."* 

Vossius  :  "  Respecting  adults,  it  is  required  that 
they  be  taught  the  Christian  religion  and  profess  it, 
before  they  be  baptized  ;  for  this  the  very  institution 
of  baptism  teaches,  Matt  xxviii.  19  ;  Mark  xvi.  15, 
16.  We  are  taught  the  same  thing  by  the  practice 
of  John  the  Baptist,  and  of  the  Apostles.  Matt.  iii. 
1,  2  ;  Luke  iii.  3  ;  Acts  ii.  38-41.  rf 

Jerome,  the  most  learned  of  the  Latin  Church 
Fathers  :  "  They  first  teach  all  the  nations,  then, 
when  they  are  taught,  they  immerse  them  in  water;  J 
for  it  cannot  be  that  the  body  should  receive  the 
sacrament  of  baptism,  unless  the  soul  have  before 
received  the  true  faith.  "§ 

These  testimonies  from  the  most  renowned  divines 
among  the  Pedobaptists  themselves,  should  be 
sufficient  to  convince  every  one  of  the  true  signifi- 
cation of  the  word  matheteuo,  and  consequently,  of 
the  true  meaning  of  the  Commission  itself.  We 
wish,  therefore,  only  to  add  that,  when  our  Saviour 
gave  this  command,  "  Go  and  make  all  nations 
disciples,"  his  express  will  and  design  must  have 
been  that  the  Apostles  should  make  the  nations  not 
merely  nominal  Christians,  but  His  "  disciples  in- 
deed."    What  idea  Christ  himself  attached  to  this 

•  Instit..  Lib.  v.  c.  67,  §  7.     Ibid.,  c.  63,  \  2. 
■f  Di-sput.    de  Baptismo  ;  disput.  xii.,  §  3. 
J  "Intingunt  aqua:"  ''they  immerse  in  water." 
§  In  Matt,  xxviii.  19.      Wall,  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bapt.,  Part  iL, 
c  1,  I  2. 

4* 


42  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


expression  we  may  learn  from  his  own  language, 
John  viii.  31  :  "  Then  said  Jesus  to  those  Jews  who 
believed  on  Him,  If  ye  continue  in  my  word,  then 
are  ye  my  disciples  indeed."  They  might  be  called 
disciples,  if  they  professed  their  faith  in  Jesus  ;  but 
they  were  not  so  truly,  unless  they  continued  in  the 
faith  of  Jesus.  Again  he  says,  Luke  xiv.  27  : 
"  Whosoever  does  not  bear  his  cross,  and  come  after 
me,  cannot  be  my  disciple."  A  disciple  of  Christ 
is,  therefore,  one  who  bears  his  cross  and  follows 
him.  Consequently,  we  must  interpret  matheteuo, 
(make  disciples),  in  agreement  with  the  idea  our 
Lord  himself  attached  to  the  word  disciple ;  we 
must  take  the  command,  "  Disciple  all  nations,"  in 
the  best  sense,  which  is  to  make  the  nations  "disci- 
ples indeed,"  that  is,  sincerely-believing,  self-de- 
nying followers  of  Christ. 

But  baptism  cannot  make  such.  Persons  coming 
to  be  baptized  are,  at  the  time,  either  believers  or 
unbelievers.  If  they  are  believers,  they  are  disciples 
already ;  if  they  are  unbelievers,  baptism  cannot 
make  them  believers,  and  therefore  cannot  make 
them  disciples.  Therefore  it  must  be  done  by 
preaching,  instructing,  and  exhorting ;  whereby 
sinners  are  brought  to  genuine  repentance  and  faith 
— are  made  true  followers  of  Christ. 

From  all  this,  we  conclude  that,  whereas  our 
Saviour  in  the  very  word  (matheteuo)  which  ex- 
presses his  command,  most  distinctly  prescribes  the 
mode  in  which  the  Apostles  should  make  disciples : 


THE    COMMISSION'    OF    CHRIST.  43 


viz.,  always  by  previous  instruction,  it  follows  in- 
contestibly,  according  to  the  Commission,  that  they 
should  never  make  the  nations  disciples  by  first 

baptizing  them,  and  then  teaching  them  to  observe 
His  commandments. 

It  is  in  vain  to  object  that  this  rule  concerns 
only  the  adults,  and  that  new-born  children  are 
exceptions  to  the  general  rule  ;  for  that  is  in  op- 
position to  the  perspicuous  meaning  of  the  Com- 
mission, which  prescribes  only  one  icay  of  making 
discijjles,  without  any  difference  or  exception  ; 
whence  it  follows  that,  according  to  the  Commission, 
the  same  thing  is  to  be  done  to  all,  and  that,  too, 
in  the  same  order.  Are  the  adults  always  to  be 
made  disciples  by  previous  preaching  and  instruc- 
tion ? — then  the  children  are  to  be  made  disciples 
in  the  same  way  ;  for  there  is  not  one  law  for  the 
adults  and  another  for  children,  but  one  and  the 
same  for  all ;  so  that  what  it  enjoins  on  one,  it 
equally  enjoins  on  all.  Here  then  remains  only 
one  alternative  ;  either  that  teaching  must  always, 
or  that  it  must  never  precede  baptism.  But  now, 
the  import  of  the  word  matheteuo  proves  that 
teaching  must  precede  baptism  ;  therefore,  infants 
cannot,  according  to  the  Commission,  be  made 
disciples,  by  being  first  baptized,  and  then  taught. 

That  children  are  not  to  be  made  disciples  of 
Christ  by  first  baptizing  them,  and  then,  after  they 
have  advanced  in  years,  teaching  them  to  observe 
the  commandments  of  Christ,  is  farther  evident  from 


4-i  CHRISTIAN"  BAPTISM. 


the  fact  that  the  construction  in  the  Greek  ex- 
presses a  simultaneousness  inthe  performance  of 
the  commanded  acts :  make  disciples,  baptize  and 
teach.  The  participles  baptizontes  (baptizing),  and 
didashontes  (teaching),  are  clearly  to  coincide  in 
time,  or  follow  immediately  upon,  the  main  action, 
matheteusate  (make  disciples).*  Whence  it  appears, 
that  they  who  are  qualified  to  be  baptized,  should 
also  be  capable  of  being  taught  immediately  the 
commandments  of  Christ ;  but  new-born  children 
are  not  competent  to  receive  such  instruction  ;  there- 
fore, neither  are  they  qualified  to  receive  baptism. 

Again,  if,  as  Pedobaptists  contend,  men  are  to 
be  baptized  before  they  are  made  disciples,  because 
the  command  to  baptize  is  in  the  present  partici- 

*  "In  all  participial  constructions,  a  relation  of  time  is  properly 
at  the  foundation,  that  is,  the  action  of  the  participle  may  stand 
in  whatsoever  connection  with  the  main  action  ;  yet  it  is  almost 
■  always  taught  as  past,  concurrent,  or  future  in  relation  to  it, 
and  is  accordingly  placed  in  the  required  tense." — Buttman's 
Greek  Grammar. 

Poion  eirenen :  Participle  present,  because  the  peace-making 
occurs  simultaneously  with  the  creation  mentioned." — H.  A.  W. 
Myer's  Commentary  on  Eph.  ii.  15. 

In  consequence  of  the  grammatical  rule  above  mentioneJ,  the 
Lutheran  divine,  Dr.  Olshausen,  makes  the  following  confession  . 
"Yet  the  combination  of  matheteusate  with  baptizontes  and  didas- 
kontes  contains  a  distinct  intimation  that  the  Redeemer  did  not 
directly  think  of  infant  baptism." — Biblical  Commentary  on 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20. 

"We  add  :  This  combination  of  the  words  contains  a  distinct 
intimation,  not  only  that  our  Lord  and  Master  had  not  the  direct, 
but  not  even  the  remotest  thought  of  infant  baptism. 


THE    COMMISSION   OF    CUEIST.  45 


pie,  then  they,  likewise,  must  be  taught  to  observe 
all  the  commandments  of  Christ,  before  they  are 
made  disciples ;  because  this  latter  command  is 
also  in  the  present  participle.  But  how  can  minis- 
ters of  Christ  teach  them  to  observe  all  the  com- 
mandments of  our  Lord  who  are  not  his  disciples  ? 
Such  persons  cannot  be  expected  to  receive  His 
orders.  The  reason  why  men  are  expected  to  listen 
to  them  is,  that  they,  being  his  disciples,  acknowl- 
edge Him  as  their  Lord  and  Master  ;  for  a  servant 
will  listen  to  his  lord's  commands,  but  all  others 
will  spurn  them.  Heuce  it  is  apparent,  that  when 
Christ  said  :  "  Disciple  the  nations,  teaching  them 
to  observe,  etc.,"  Pie  meant  that  the  Apostles  should 
first  disciple  the  nations,  and  then  teach  them  to 
obey  his  commandments.  But  since  the  expression 
"disciple,  teaching,"  means  disciple  first,  and  then 
teach,  the  expression  "  disciple,  baptizing,"  likewise 
means  disciple  first,  and  then  baptize. 

There  is,  therefore,  in  the  fact  that  the  com- 
mand to  baptize  is  in  the  present  participle,  no 
valid  reason  why  the  words  of  the  original  (make 
disciples,  baptizing),  should  be  translated  thus  : 
"  Make  all  nations  disciples  in  that  ye,  (or,  by  means 
that  ye)  baptize  them,  etc.,  and  teach  them,  etc.  ;" 
for,  though  it  be  true  that  the  present  participle, 
when  it  stands  next  after  a  definitive  vi 
be  resolved  by  means  of  the  particles  "in  that."'  or 
"by,"  it  is  nevertheless  far  from  being  the  general 
rule  ;  but  such  accessory  sentences  as  those  occur- 


46  CHRISTIAN"    BAPTISM, 


ring  in  this  passage,  generally  express  only  those 
kinds  of  accessory  circumstances,  which  are  thought 
to  be  connected  with  the  principal  notion,  and  may 
be  resolved  not  only  by  means  of  the  particles  '  in 
that,"  or  "by,"  but  also  by  means  of  manifold  ot^er 
particles,  as  and,  then,  because,  icho,  etc.*  Of  this 
the  original  of  the  New  Testament  contains  almost 
innumerable  instances,  of  which  the  following  may 
serve  as  evidence.  "  There  came  to  Him  a  certain 
man  kneeling  down  to  him."  Matt.  xvii.  11.  The 
man  did  not  come  by  means  of  kneeling,  which 
would  have  had  an  odd  appearance,  but  he  cane 
and  knelt.  "Lend,  hoping  for  nothing  again." 
Luke  vi.  35.  Here  the  words  are  not  to  be  int  3T- 
preted  thus  :  "  Lend,  by  hoping  for  nothing  again" 
but  thus  :  "  Lend,  and  when  ye  lend  hope  for  no 
return."  In  like  manner,  the  Commission  is  to  be 
interpreted  thus  :  "  Make  disciples  ;  and  as  you 
make  disciples,  baptize  them,  and  teach  them  to 

*  Matthice:  "Every  action  which  admits  of  being  conside-ed 
a8  only  accompanying  another,  which  is  the  main  action,  ;  nd 
may  thus  be  represented  as  an  accessory  circumstance  of  another ; 
the  Greeks  are  fond  of  expressing  by  the  participle,  and  e^en 
when  two  finite  verbs  are  joined  by  and,  one  of  them  is  generrlly 
put  in  the  participle,  and  the  copula,  is  omitted."  ....  "  The 
accessory  circumstances  which,  by  means  of  the  participle,  ire 
joined  to  a  substantive  or  a  main  action,  are  1,  either  such  as 
in  other  languages  are  expressed  by  the  pronoun  relative,  toge- 
ther with  a  finite  verb,  etc.,  or  2,  such  as  in  the  Latin  and  Ger- 
man are  expressed  by  several  other  particles:  then,  or  when, 
because,  though,  by  means  of,  in  order  to,  etc." — Ausfiihiliche 
Greek  Gram.,  2  theil.,  pp.  1294,  1295. 


THE    COMMISSION    OF    CHRIST.  47 


observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you."  Thus  our  old  Swedish  version,  too,  has  very 
well  resolved  the  two  participial  sentences,  "bap- 
tizing," etc.,  "teaching,"  etc.,  by  means  o{  the  parti- 
ciple and :  "  Teach  all  nations,  and  baptize  them, 
.  .  .   and  teach  them  .  .  .  ." 

Finally,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  when  it  reads, 
"Make  all  nations  disciples,  baptizing  them,"  etc., 
the  word  them  does  not  refer  to  the  nations  as  un- 
believers, but  as  disciples.  Our  Saviour  could  not 
possibly  have  meant  that  the  Apostles  should  bap- 
tize all  men  without  exception  ;  for  this  would  have 
been,  in  the  first  place,  a  commandment  to  baptize 
without  any  previous  preaching  and  instruction, 
even  blasphemers,  atheists,  idolaters,  etc.  ;  and 
secondly,  it  is  in  decided  opposition  to  the  context, 
from  which  it  was  evident  that  the  Apostles,  before 
baptism,  were  to  make  disciples  by  preaching  and 
instruction  (matheteusate),  and  immediately  after 
baptism,  teach  them  to  observe  all  the  command- 
ments of  Christ.  Therefore,  the  word  "  them,"  in 
this  place,  is  to  be  understood  with  a  necessary 
limitation  to  such  as  previously  have  been  made  the 
disciples  of  Christ.  Such  a  limitation  often  occurs 
in  the  new  Testament.  Thus  it  reads,  for  instance, 
in  Matt.  iii.  5,  6  :  "Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem, 
and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about 
Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him,  confessing  their 
sins."  Here  it  is  not  meant  that  all  men  in  all 
Judea,  etc.,  were  baptized   by  John,  but  only  a 


48  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


certain  class  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  whole  country, 
viz.,  such  as  confessed  their  sins.  Likewise,  in  Matt. 
xxiv.  9  :  "  Ye  shall  be  hated  of  ail  nations  for  my 
name's  sake,"  Here  it  is  not  meant  that  they  also 
should  be  hated  by  infants  :  nor  is  it  meant  that  all 
of  mature  years  would  hate  them,  but  only  a  cer- 
tain class  of  all  nations.  Thus,  too,  when  it  reads, 
"  Make  all  nations  disciples,  baptizing  them,  etc., 
and  teaching  them,  etc.,"  it  is  not  meant  that  the 
Apostles  should  baptize  all,  without  discrimination, 
among  all  nations,  but  only  a  certain  class  among 
all  nations.  This  is  also  in  accordance  with  the 
rules  of  the  Greek  grammar.  For,  according  to  the 
rules,  the  word  to  which  "  them"  (aulous)  refers,  may 
be  considered  as  taken  out  of  the  verb  matheteuein 
(make  disciples).  That  which  precedes  the  word 
"them,"  may  thus  be  considered  to  be  the  word 
disciples  (mathelai),  taken  out  of  matheteuo,  whence 
the  meaning,  according  to  the  original  is  :  "  Make 
all  nations  disciples,  baptizing  the  disciples."* 

To  those,  therefore,  who  reason  thus  :  '  Christ 
has  commanded  to  baptize  all  nations,  and  new-born 
children  are  a  part  of  all  nations,  consequently  new- 
born children  are  also  to  be  baptized  as  well  as 
adults;"  we  only  say  that  such  a  conclusion  has  no 
ground  whatever  in  the  Commission  which  both  al- 

*  For  further  instances  of  such  a  mode  of  speech  in  the  New 
Testament,  see  Matt  xix.  13;  Eph.  v.  12;  1  Pet.  iii.  14.  Comp. 
"Winer's  Idioms  of  the  New  Testament;  Matthiae,  Greek  Gram. 
2  th.,  pp.  978,  979. 


THE    COMMISSION   OF    CHBIST.  49 


lows  and  requires  that  the  word  "them"  be  limited 
to  such  as  have  been  made  disciples  of  Christ. 

We  have  hitherto  been  considering  only  the 
records  of  our  Lord's  Commission  as  given  by  Mat- 
thew. What  we  have  learned  from  this  might,  of 
itself,  be  sufficient,  once  for  all,  to  convince  us  of  the 
true  meaning  of  this  Commission.  But  as  if  to 
preclude  any  occasion  to  cavil  at  the  distinctly-ex- 
pressed will  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit  has  caused 
the  Evangelist  Mark  to  record  the  same  Commis- 
sion, if  possible,  in  still  more  express  terms.  Ac- 
cording to  this  Evangelist,  Christ  commands  the 
Apostles  to  "go  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 
Gospel  to  the  whole  creation,"  that  is,  to  all  men 
endowed  with  reason,*  and  in  this  way  to  bring  men 
to  believe  in  him,  or,  as  Matthew  expresses  it,  "make 
disciples."  To  which  Christ  adds  this  solemn  dec- 
laration :  "  He  that  shall  become  a  believer,  and 
be  baptized,  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  shall  remain 
an  unbeliever,  shall  be  damned." 

In  order  plainly  to  understand  the  import  of  this 
command,  we  should  put  ourselves  in  the  place  of 
the  Apostles.     Let  us  imagine  that  Christ  person- 

*  The  whole  creation,  that  is,  all  created  beings;  by  which 
here,  as  well  as  in  Col.  i.  23,  all  men  are  signified,  as  the  Jcat' 
exochen  (preeminently)  created,  as  also  the  Rabbinic  habirijoth 
is  used." — H.  A.  TV.  Meyer's  Commentary  on  this  passage: — 

"  Ezra,  the  priest,  brought  the  law  before  the  congregation, 
and  read  therein  from  the  morning  until  mid-day,  before  the  men 
and  the  women,  and  those  (hat  could  understand,  etc." — See  Neh. 
chapter  viii. 

5 


50  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


ally  had  given  us  this  command  and  declaration. 
What  would  we  have  had  in  the  first  place  to  do  ? 
Answer :  To  go  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 
Gospel  to  all  classes  of  men.  That  would  have  been 
our  first  concern.  But  the  Lord  declares  that,  while 
we  thus  preach,  it  will  take  place  that  some  will  be- 
lieve our  preaching  and  be  baptized,  and  thus  be 
saved.  Now  again  the  question  arises :  When  should 
our  hearers  be  baptized  ?  Before  we  had  preached 
the  Gospel  to  them,  and  they  had  believed  it  ?  or  after 
they  had  heard  the  Gospel  and  believed  ?  The  answer 
follows  of  itself.  We  could  not  expect  that  they 
would  be  willing  to  submit  to  baptism  ;  nor  would 
we  feel  authorized,  by  virtue  of  this  Commission, 
to  baptize  them  until  they  had  heard  and  professed 
themselves  to  believe  our  preaching.  The  order 
which  the  Lord  has  here  sanctioned  for  his  church 
in  all  times  is,  consequently,  this  :  The  preaching 
of  the  Gospel — faith — baptism — salvation.  Whence 
it  follows  that,  in  this  place,  as  well  as  in  Matthew, 
no  word  is  found  luhich  can  apply  to  the  baptism 
of  new-born  children,  without  any  precious  teach- 
ing and  instruction* 

*  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  lived  in  the  second  century  after 
Christ,  and  himself  spoke  the  Greek  language  as  his  vernacular 
tongue,  comprehends  the  records  of  the  Commission  of  Christ, 
given  by  Matthew  and  Mark  in  the  following  short  and  plain 
paraphrase:  "  Go  about  and  preach,  and  such  as  believe  baptize 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit" — Periiontes  Jcerussate  kai   tous  pieteuontas  baptizete  ei« 


THE    COMMISSION    OF    CHRIST.  51 


We  observe  that  in  the  declaration  connected  with 
the  commission  to  preach  the  Gospel,  is  contained 
a  promise  and  a  threatening,  directed  to  the  hearers 
of  the  Gospel.  The  promise  reads  :  "  He  that  shall 
become  a  believer  and  be  baptized,  shall  be  saved.'' 
The  threatening  :  "  He  that  shall  be  an  unbeliever, 
shall  be  condemned."  But  in  this  promise  and 
threatening  is  also  implied  a  command  to  all  the 
hearers  of  the  Gospel  to  believe  and  be  baptized. 
The  following  example  may  serve  as  an  illustration. 
Suppose  that  a  king's  subjects  had  revolted,  and 
the  king  had  given  out  a  commission  to  this  effect : 
"  Go  and  proclaim  a  pardon  to  these  rebellious 
subjects;  he  that  lays  down  his  arms  and  takes  an 
oath  of  allegiance,  shall  be  pardoned ;  but  he  that 
continues  to  follow  the  standard  of  rebellion,  shall 
be  punished."  Could  any  one  say  that  there  were 
not  implied  both  a  command  to  lay  down  the  arm3 
of  rebellion  and  also  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  ? 
It  is  no  otherwise  than  if  the  king  had  said  to 
every  one  of  the  rebellious  subjects:  "Lay  down 

onovia,  etc. — ("Wall,  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  Oxford,  1844,  vol. 
iii.  p.  331.) 

Which  interpretation  of  the  Commission  should  wc  rather 
trust  ?  this  of  Clement,  the  ancient  church-father,  who  himself,  as 
his  vernacular,  spoke  the  language  in  which  the  Ts"ew  Testament 
is  originally  written,  or  that  of  some  among  the  modern  Pedo- 
baptists,  according  to  which  our  Saviour  i3  represented  as  having 
commanded  his  Apostles  to  make  the  nations  disciples  by  f.rit 
baptizing  them,  and  then  teaching  them  to  observe  his  command- 
merits  ? 


52  CHRISTIAN"   BAPTISM. 


your  arms,  and  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  ;  for  un- 
less you  do  it,  you  must  be  punished."  Thus,  too, 
when  it  reads:  "Go  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature  ;  he  that  shall  become 
a  believer  and  be  baptized,  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he 
that  shall  be  an  unbeliever,  shall  be  condemned;" 
is  there  not  in  these  words  implied  the  most  serious 
command,  under  the  penalty  of  a  forfeiture  of  sal- 
vation, to  believe  and  be  baptized?  Though  the 
command  is  not  expressed  directly,  yet  it  is  just  as 
forcibly  expressed  indirectly.  It  is  no  otherwise 
than  if  the  Lord  had  said  to  every  one  of  us:  "  Be- 
lieve the  Gospel  and  be  baptized." 

Here  again  the  question  arises  :  In  what  order ', 
according  to  this  Commission,  ought  a  man  to  ap- 
ply for  baptism  ;  while  he  is  yet  an  unbeliever  and 
enemy  against  God,  or  after  he  has  been  converted 
and  become  a  believer  ?  The  answer  again  follows 
of  itself.  It  would  be  a  blasphemy,  if  rebellious 
subjects,  with  the  arms  of  rebellion  in  their  hands 
directed  against  the  king,  offered  themselves  to  take 
an  oath  of  allegiance  in  his  presence, — the  king 
would  meet  them  with  his  anger  and  punishment. 
Thus,  too,  if  an  unbeliever  offers  himself  to  be  bap- 
tized, the  Lord  meets  him  with  His  anger,  and  asks  : 
"  Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands  V  Isa.  i. 
12.  "Why  shouldest  thou  take  my  covenant  in 
thy  mouth,  seeing  thou  hatest  instruction,  and 
castest  my  word  behind  thee  ?"  Ts.  1.  16,  17. 
Hence  it  is  evident  that  believers  only  are  to  com- 


THE  COMMISSION  OF  CHRIST.  53 


ply  with  the  command  to  be  baptized.  As  in  Matt, 
xxviii.  10,  20,  the  Apostles  were  commanded  to 
baptize  disciples  only ;  so,  too,  according  to  this 
commandment  of  Christ,  only  such  are  to  be  bap- 
tized as  have  heard  and  believed  the  Gospel. 

And  in  regard  to  infants  especially,  it  may  be 
observed,  that  as  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20,  not  a  syl- 
lable can  apply  to  new-born  children,  so  neither 
here.  Christ  could  not  have  commanded  his  servants 
to  gather  numbers  of  new-born  children,  and  gravely 
preach  to  them  that  they  are  lost  sinners,  and  that 
they  ought  to  repent  and  believe  in  Christ,  in  order 
to  be  saved.  And  just  as  the  servants  of  Christ 
are  not  commanded  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  new- 
born children,  so  the  children  themselves  are  not 
commanded,  on  the  forfeiture  of  salvation,  to  believe 
it,  inasmuch  as  they  are  neither  able  to  understand, 
nor  by  faith  to  receive,  the  Gospel.  Consequently, 
they  can  not  be  included  in  the  commandment  to 
be  baptized;  which  embraces  only  those  icho  have 
heard  and  believed  the  Gospel.  This  passage  there- 
fore furnishes  an  argument  against  infant  baptism  ; 
for  inasmuch  as  only  such  as  have  heard  and  be- 
lieved the  Gospel  are  to  comply  with  the  Lord's 
commandment  to  be  baptized,  all  others  must  ne- 
cessarily be  excluded  from  the  baptism  here  en- 
joined. If  you  wish  to  have  a  baptism  for  others, 
it  finds  no  authority  whatever  in  this  Commission, 
but  must  necessarily  be  grounded  on  another  com- 
mandment. 


54  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


But  it  is  objected  that,  though  new-born  children 
are  not  able  to  understand  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  they  may,  however,  in  a  certain  sense,  be 
said  to  believe,  wherefore  they  also  have  a  right  to 
baptism.  To  this  we  answer :  Even  could  it  be 
proved  that  new-born  children  in  any  sense  are 
able  to  believe,  yet  they  are  evidently  not  included 
among  those  to  whom  the  servants  of  Christ  should 
preach  the  Gospel,  and  of  whom  He  solemnly  de- 
clares that,  if  they  believe  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  and  are  baptized,  they  will  be  saved  ;  but 
if  they  do  not  believe,  they  will  be  condemned  : 
that  is,  they  cannot  believe  the  Gospel  of  Christ  in 
a  scriptural  sense.  But  it  cannot  be  proved  that 
they  are  able  to  believe  in  any  sense  ;  which  will  be 
evident,  if  we  examine  the  arguments  commonly 
alleged  by  Pedobaptists,  for  this  purpose. 

1.  Their  first  argument  is:  "John  the  Baptist 
was  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  even  in  the  womb  ; 
consequently,  he  must  then  already  have  possessed 
faith."  Answer:  It  is  one  thing  to  be  filled  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  womb,  and  another  thing  to 
believe.  The  one  does  not  necessarily  presuppose 
the  other  ;  and  the  Scriptures  speak  not  a  word  of 
John's  faith  in  the  womb.  That  unborn  or  new- 
born children  necessarily  must  have  faith,  in  order 
to  be  sanctified  or  saved,  cannot  be  proved  from  Heb. 
xi.  6.  For  this  passage  speaks  not  of  infants,  but 
only  of  adults,  as  is  evident  from  the  context.  For 
next  to  the  words,  "  Without  faith  it  is  impossible 


THE    COMMISSION    OF    CIIKIST.  55 


to  please  God,"  it  immediately  reads  :  "  For  he  that 
cometli  to  Him  must  believe  that  He  is,  and  that 
He  is  a  re  warder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  Him." 
Here  it  is  evident,  that  these  records  speak  only  of 
such  persons  as  have  arrived  at  the  years  of  discre- 
tion. For  what  can  infants  know  and  believe  of  the 
character  of  God,  who  rewards  and  punishes!  But 
even  if  we  take  for  granted,  that  John  the  Baptist 
in  the  womb  really  did  believe,  it  does  not  follow, 
that  all  children  in  the  womb  believe.  If  the  Lord 
deviates  from  the  established  course  of  things,  and 
works  a  miracle  with  an  individual,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  He  works  the  same  miracle  on  all  men. 
If  Elias  could  bid  fire  to  come  down  from  heaven 
to  devour  his  enemies  (2  Kings  i.),  it  does  not  fol- 
low, that  all  men  have  a  power  and  right  to  do  the 
same. 

2.  It  is  said  :  "  Children  cried  Hosanna  in  the 
Temple  ;  consequently  they  must  have  believed." 
Answer  :  The  children  who  are  said,  in  Matt.  xxi. 
15,  to  have  cried  Hosanna,  were  not  infants.  For 
the  Greek  word  paidas,  there  corresponding  to 
"  children,"  signifies  properly  grown  children.  And 
their  following  Christ  is  proof  that  they  were  old 
enough  to  believe.  We  do  not  object  against  the 
baptism  of  children,  when  they  give  proper  evidence 
of  faith  in  Christ.  But  where  is  such  evidence  to 
be  found  among  infants  ? 

On  the  words  quoted  by  our  Saviour,  "  Out 
of  the  mouths   of   babes  and  sucklings  thou  hast 


56  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


perfected  praise,"  v.  16,  Dr.  H.  A.  TV.  Meyer 
writes:  "In  the  application  of  the  passage,  Ps. 
viii.  2,  in  its  fulfillment  here  occurring  by  the  crying 
of  the  children  in  the  Temple,  among  whom  natu- 
rally were  no  sucklings,  the  expression  'and  suck- 
lings' is  left  out  of  consideration,  and  of  the  words 
'infants  and  sucklings,1  the  idea  of  children  only 
is  to  be  retained."* 

3.  The  Pedobnptists  quote  also  the  words  of  Christ 
in  Matt,  xviii.  6,  "Whoso  shall  offend  one  of  these 
little  ones  which  believe  in  me,  etc."  To  this  we 
answer  :  Although  these  words  say,  that  "  little 
ones71  believe  in  Christ,  they,  however,  do  not  speak 
of  neiv-born  children.  For  in  the  first  place,  the 
child  that  gave  occasion  to  these  words  of  the  Lord, 
was  not  a  n^w-born  child,  but  such  a  one  as  of  its 
own  accord  could  understand  and  comply  with  a 
calling  to  come  to  Christ.  For  in  v.  2  it  reads  : 
"Jesus  called  a  child  to  Him."  And  when  it,  of 
its  own  accord,  upon  calling  had  come  forward,  He 
set  it  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples  :  it  was  conse- 
quently not  carried  in  the  arms.  We  are  free  to 
admit,  that  this  child  really  believed  in  Christ.  But 
the  text  says  plainly,  that  it  was  such  a  child  that 
of  its  own  accord  could  perceive  and  understand  a 
calling  from  the  Lord  and  come  to  Him.  Of  this 
child,  then,  Christ  says,  "Whosoever  shall  receive 
such  a  child  [as  this]  in  my  name,  receiveth  me." 

*  Commentary  in  loc. 


THE    COMMISSION    OF    CHRIST. 


And  lie  further  adds  :  "  But  whoso  shall  offend  one 
of  these  little  oues  wliieh  believe  in  me,"  etc.  Here 
these,  or  such  little  ones  as  believe,  are  distin- 
guished from  other  little  ones  which  do  not  believe. 
None  would  ever  contend  that  all  children  in  the 
world  of  from  live  to  twelve  years  really  believed  in 
Christ,  although  some  at  this  age  may  believe  in 
Him.  In  the  second  place,  the  word  paidion  (child) 
which  is  found  in  the  original,  in  Mark  v.  39-42,  is 
also  used  of  a  girl  of  twelve  years.  The  child 
which  here  was  called  forward  and  placed  before 
the  disciples  might,  consequently,  have  arrived  at 
the  age  of  twelve  years. 

These  are  the  principal  passages  which  Pedo- 
baptists  allege,  in  order  to  prove  that  infants  pos- 
sess, or  are  able  to  possess  faith.  Hence  we  per- 
ceive how  uncertain  the  ground  is  on  which  they 
build.  With  all  their  arguments  they  can  only 
show  what  God  is  able  to  do,  not  what  He  ordina- 
rily and  commonly  does,  with  infants.  If  infants  have 
faith,  why  do  they  not  manifest  the  fruits  of  faith  ? 
Until  such  manifestation  is  made,  we  must  reason- 
ably doubt.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Pedo- 
baptists,  we  are  to  baptize  new-born  children  only  on 
the  ground  that  God,  to  whom  nothing  is  impossible, 
is  able  to  work  faith  in  their  hearts.  But  this  is  to 
tempt  God.  Such  an  argument  the  devil  also  ad- 
duced, when  he  wished  to  persuade  the  Lord  to  cast 
himself  down  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple  ;  for, 
said  he,  God  is  surely  able  to  preserve  thee.  Matt. 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


iv.  5-8.  "Why  not,  for  the  same  reason,  also  give 
to  infants  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  which  they  have  a 
right  just  as  well  as  to  baptism  ? 

Xow  we  not  only  have  no  single  passage  in  the 
Scriptures  to  prove  that  God  ordinarily  works  faith 
in  infants,  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  expressly  de- 
clares, that  they  in  an  ordinary  way  cannot  have 
faith.  For  thus  says  the  Apostle  :  "  How  shall 
they  believe  in  Him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard. 
And  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher  ?  So 
then  faith  cometh  by  hearing."  Rom.  x.  14,  IT. 
The  import  of  these  words  is  so  evident  that  a  little 
child  could  easily  understand  it.  If  faith  "  cometh 
by  hearing,"  and  new-born  children  are  capable  of 
believing,  why  should  we  not  also  statedly  preach 
to  them  ? 

In  what  way  the  Holy  Spirit  produces  faith  we 
may  learn  from  the  following  passages  :  John  xvii. 
20  :  **  Xeither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  then 
also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word." 
John  xx.  31 ;  "  These  [signs]  are  written,  that  ye 
might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God."  Acts  xv.  T  :  "The  gentiles,  by  my  mouth, 
heard  the  word  of  the  gospel  and  believed."  1 
Cor. .xv.  11  :  "  So  we  preach,  and  so  ye  believed." 
Eph.  i.  13  :  "  In  whom  ye  also  trusted,  after  that  ye 
heard  the  word  of  the  truth,  the  yospel  of  your  sal- 
vation." 1  Thess.  ii.  13  :  "When  ye  received  the 
word  of  God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it 
not  as  the  word  of  men,  but,  as  it  is  in  truth,  the 


THE  COMMISSION  OF  CHRIST.  59 


word  of  God,  which  effectually  worketh  also  in  you 
that  believe."  Thus  the  Scriptures  everywhere 
teach,  that  the  only  means  by  which  faith  comes  is 
the  word  of  truth,  preached  or  written,  and  received 
in  the  intellect ;  any  other  means  of  receiving  faith 
the  Scriptures  nowhere  have  revealed. 

As  the  Pcdobaptists  themselves  cannot  rely  on 
their  own  interpretation  of  the  Commission,  they 
also  are  compelled  to  concede,  that  neither  in  this 
Commission  nor  anywhere  else  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, have  we  any  express  commandment  to  bap- 
tize new-born  children.  But  while  they  have  not 
been  able  to  ground  infant  baptism  on  any  express 
commandment  of  God,  they  have  devised  other 
arguments  in  its  defense,  some  of  the  principal  of 
which  we  will  nowr  adduce  and  examine. 

1.  That  the  Apostles,  they  say,  did  not  receive 
any  express  commandment  to  baptize  new-born 
children,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  for  their  com- 
mission was  to  "  go  forth"  to  form  congregations 
and  plant  the  church.  But  the  case  must  be  other- 
wise when  congregations  are  formed  and  the  church 
is  planted,  for  then  the  children  belong  to  the 
church  from  their  connection  with  their  parents. 
Hence  it  is  right  and  becoming,  that  they  also 
should  be  united  to  the  church  by  baptism,  especi- 
ally as  infant  baptism  is  not  in  the  Scriptures  ex- 
pressly forbidden. 

To  this  we  answer  :  "Why  infant  baptism  was  not 
as  becoming  for  the  Apostolic  as  for  subsequent 


60  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


times,  we  are  unable  to  understand.  Were  not 
flourishing  Christian  churches  found  in  the  Apostolic 
age  ?  Were  there  not  in  these  churches  many  be- 
lieving families  with  both  older  and  younger,  yea, 
new-born  children  ?  Had  not  these  children  just  as 
good  a  right  to  baptism  as  those  who  were  born  in 
the  subsequent  ages  ?  And  are  not  the  servants 
of  the  Lord  commissioned  to  "go  forth"  into  the 
whole  world  and  form  churches  in  our  time,  as  well 
as  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  ?  As  all  this  cannot 
be  denied,  it  is  passing  strange  that,  in  the  whole 
Xew  Testament,  there  should  not  be  found  the  least 
allusion  to  the  use  and  need  of  infant  baptism,  or 
the  least  trace  of  its  existence,  if  the  Lord  had  de- 
signed it  to  be  introduced  into  His  church  ?  That 
the  children,  by  reason  of  their  connection  with 
their  parents,  belong  to  the  church,  and  therefore 
are  to  be  united  tp  it  by  baptism,  is  assumed  with- 
out any  warrant  from  the  Bible.*  That,  finally, 
new-born  children  may  be  baptized  on  the  ground 
that  infant  baptism  is  not  expressly  forbidden,  is 
most  absurd.  On  this  principle  you  may  also  bap- 
tize new-born  children  of  the  heathen,^  as  well  as 
all  unconverted  grown  persons ;  for  where  in  the 
Scriptures  is  it  expressly  forbidden?  Yea,  further, 
on  this  principle  the   Catholics  may  baptize  their 

*  See  further  on   this  subject  in  the  Exposition  of  1  Cor.  vii. 

f  It  is  a  known  fact  that  the  Catholics  even  baptize  the  chil- 
dren of  the  heathen;  which  custom,  however,  is  rejected  by  all 
Protestant  churches. 


THE   COMMISSION    OF   CHRIST.  Gl 


bells,  which  they  also  do.  The  Commission  does 
not  contain  any  precept  to  baptize  bells,  but  neither 
does  it  contain  any  express  'prohibition.  The 
argument  of  the  Romanist  is  just  as  good  as  that 
of  the  Protestant  Pedobaptist,  and  his  bell-baptism 
is  much  more  harmless.  For  the  sprinkling  a  little 
water  upon  a  bell  can  do  it  neither  good  nor  evil ; 
but  the  performing  of  the  same  ceremony  on  a  babe 
in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  may  produce  to  the 
individual  and  the  community  an  incalculable  harm. 
On  this  principle  nothing  can  be  objected  against 
mass  offerings,  soul  masses  for  the  dead,  holy  water, 
and  other  abominable  abuses.  For  the  Catholic 
may  justly  ask  the  Protestants :  "Where  are  these  an- 
cient holy  rites  expressly  forbidden  in  the  Scriptures?" 
Again,  on  the  same  principle,  may  the  Greek  church 
justly  say  to  the  Protestants  :  "  You  forbid  us  to 
give  the  Eucharist  to  infants,  show  us  an  express 
prohibition  in  the  Scriptures,  else  you  have  lost 
your  causQ." 

2.  Pedobaptists  further  object  that,  according  to 
our  principles,  the  women  would  have  no  right  to 
commune  at  the  Lord's  table,  as  nothing  in  the 
Scriptures  was  expressly  stated  concerning  it,  nor 
concerning  the  sanctification  of  the  Lord's  day, 
monogamy,  &c. 

To  this  we  answer  :  We  do  not  reject  infant  bap- 
tism merely  because  there  is  no  express  divine  pre- 
cept requiring  it,  but  because  there  is  neither  com- 
6 


62  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


mand,  nor  example,  nor  fair  inference  in  its  favor, 
in  a  single  passage  in  the  word  of  God. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  to  the  title  of  women  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  in  the  Scriptures  placed 
beyond  any  doubt.  For  the  command  to  celebrate 
the  Lord's  Supper,  originally  given  to  the  Apostles, 
was  not  given  to  them  as  Apostles,  nor  as  men,  but 
as  disciples  of  Christ.  And  when  our  Lord  com- 
missioned His  Apostles  to  teach  His  disciples  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  He  had  commanded 
them,  it  is  evident  that  even  females  were  included 
in  that  Commission,  for  they  were  believers,  Acts 
v.  14,  and  baptized,  Acts  viii.  12.  As  the  command- 
ment, therefore,  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
one  of  all  the  things  that  Christ  had  enjoined  on 
His  disciples  to  observe,  women,  as  well  as  men,  are 
evidently  commanded  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. Further,  the  Xew  Testament  tells  us  plainly 
and  unambiguously,  that  even  females  partook  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  For  according  to  what  we 
have  already  learned,  they  were  among  the  "all 
who  believed"  and  "  broke  bread,"*  Acts  ii.  42,  and 
among  "the  disciples"  who  "broke  the  bread," 
Acts  xx.  7  ;  they  partook  together  with  the  men  in 
the  public  services,  1  Cor.  xi.,  and  especially  in 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  v.  20  ;  they 
were,  as  well  as  the  males,  exhorted  to  examine 
themselves  before  the  celebration  of  the  Supper,  v. 

*  That  is,  celebrated  U.«  Lord's  Sapper.     Confer.  1  Cor.  x.  1C. 


THE   COMMISSION    OF   CHRIST.  60 

28.  Is  there,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  be  found 
such  an  evidence  in  favor  of  infant  baptism  ? 

As  to  the  substitution  of  the  Lord's  day  for  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  that  change  was  made  by  the 
Apostles,  who  were  authorized  by  the  Lord  "to  set 
all  things  in  order''  that  pertained  to  the  worship 
and  government  of  the  church.  This  change,  there- 
fore, possesses  to  us  the  nature  both  of  a  precept 
and  a  precedent.  Acts  xx.  7:  "And  upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  when  the  disciples  came  to- 
gether to  break  bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them. 
"LTpon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  let  every  one  of 
you  layby  him  in  store  as  God  hath  prospered  him, 
that  there  be  no  gatherings  when  I  come."  1  Cor. 
xvi.  2.  "  I  was  in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day." 
Rev.  i.  10.  Here  we  have  clear  evidence  that  the 
Apostles  kept  "the  Lord's  day,"  or  the  Sunday, 
holy.  "Where  do  we  find  any  such  evidence  that 
they  baptized  new-born  children  ? 

As  to  the  subject  of  monogamy,  we  point  only  to 
such  passages  as  these  :  Matt.  v.  32  ;  xix.  4-10  ; 
Mark*.  6-9;  1  Cor.  vii.  2,  10-16;  Eph.  v.  31. 
Every  one  who  with  attention  peruses  these  pas- 
sages, will  undoubtedly  perceive  that  monogamy  in 
the  Xew  Testament  is  distinctly  and  definitely  pre- 
scribed. 

3.  Another  argument  in  favor  of  infant  baptism 
runs  thus  :  "  The  ultimate  authority  for  infant  bap- 
tism in  the  bosom  of  a  regular  Christian  community, 
and  under  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  pious  education — 


64  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


for  only  on  tnese  terms  do  we  advocate  it — lies  in  the 
universal  import  of  Christ's  person  and  work,  which 
extends  as  far  as  humanity  itself.  Christ  is  not 
only  able  but  willing  to  save  mankind  of  all  classes, 
in  all  circumstances,  of  both  sexes,  and  at  all  stages 
of  life,  and  consequently  to  provide  for  all  these 
the  necessary  means  of  grace.  A  Christ  able  and 
willing  to  save  none  but  adalts,  would  be  no  such 
Christ  as  the  Gospel  presents.  The  exclusion  of  a 
part  of  our  race  from  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  on  account  of  age  has  not  the  slightest 
warrant  in  the  Holy.  Scriptures,  and  our  noblest 
impulses,  our  deepest  religious  feelings,  rise  against 
such  a  particularism."  .  .  .  "Baptists,  in  ad- 
mitting infants  into  heaven  without  regeneration  or 
faith,  either  deny  original  sin  and  guilt,  or  open  a 
way  of  salvation  unknown,  nay*directly  opposed 
to,  the  Gospel."* 

To  this  we  answer  :  We  believe  in  "the  universal 
import  of  Christ's  person  and  work,"  with  respect 
to  all  persons  who  have  the  means  of  gaining  any 
knowledge  concerning  them.  But  as  to  the  rela- 
tion of  His  "  person  and  work"  to  the  generations 
which  lived  and  died,  especially  out  of  the  circle  of 
the  Old  Testament  revelations,  before  Christ  came  ; 
to  the  untaught  heathen  world  since  that  time  ;  and 
to  the  infants  and  children  in  Christian  lands  who 
die  before  they  become  capable  of  direct  instruc- 

*  History  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  By  Phil.  Schaff,  New 
York,  1853,  p.  572. 


THE    COMMISSION"    OF    CHRIST.  65 


tion,  we  have  to  confess  ourselves  in  the  dark. 
We  cannot  take  conjectures,  assertions,  vague 
popular  opinions,  or  doubtful  interpretations  of  ob- 
scure and  uncertain  passages  of  Scripture,  as  know- 
ledge. 

When  it  is  alleged  that  "the  exclusion  of  a  part 
of  our  race  from  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  on  account  of  age  has  not  the  slightest  war- 
rant in  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  we  observe  that  this, 
as  an  argument  against  the  opposers  of  infant  bap- 
tism, assumes  that  infants,  unless  baptized  before 
they  die,  must  be  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  Again,  when  it  is  said  that  "the  Baptists, 
in  admitting  infants  into  heaven  without  regenera- 
tion or  faith,  either  deny  original  sin  and  guilt,  or 
open  a  way  of  salvation  unknown,  nay,  directly 
opposed  to  the  Gospel,"  the  belief  is  plainly  signi- 
fied, that  those  infants  to  whom  baptism  as  the 
sacrament  of  regeneration  has  not  been  applied  be- 
fore death  must  be  lost.  Hence  the  ground  on 
which  infant  baptism  here  is  advocated  is  really 
this  :  baptism  is  essential  to  salvation,  a  proposition 
which  we,  in  another  part  of  our  work,  shall  have  a 
fair  opportunity  to  refute. 

The  further  objections  which  are  made  against 
the  true  interpretation  of  the  Commission  concern- 
ing the  subjects  of  baptism,  we  shall  hereafter  have 
sion  to  answer;  and  we  proceed  to  consider 
what  the  Lord  in  His  commission  has  prescribed 
with  regard  to  the  mode  of  baptism. 
6* 


66  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


"We  contend  that  this  mode  is  only  one,  and  is, 
by  the  Lord  himself,  most  distinctly  defined.  Christ 
must  have  expressed  His  commandment  concerning 
the  mode  of  baptism  in  that  sense  which  the  word 
used  by  Him  had  received  in  common  language  ; 
for  in  this  commandment  there  is  nothing  which 
requires  that  the  word  shall  be  understood  in  any 
other  than  the  ordinary  and  general  sense.  If, 
therefore,  we  can  ascertain  the  ordinary  meaning 
that  the  word  baptizo  had  received  in  the  time  of 
Christ  and  the  Apostles,  we  also  shall  know  with 
certainty  what  meaning  our  Saviour  has  attached 
to  it  in  His  commission.  For  our  Saviour  could 
no  more  have  given  a  new  meaning  to  baptizo  in  the 
commission,  than  to  phago  (to  eat)  and  pino  (to 
drink)  in  the  Institution  of  the  Supper.  He  spoke 
to  His  disciples  in  the  language  of  the  people,  and 
the  words  which  he  used  signified,  as  they  fell  from 
His  lips,  just  what  the  people  were  accustomed  to 
understand  by  them,  in  the  established  usages  of 
the  language.  Let  it  also,  at  the  same  time,  be  re- 
membered, that  in  all  laws  the  words  are  required 
to  be  taken  and  obeyed  in  their  ordinary  significa- 
tion. But  now  it  is  a  commonly  received  and  un- 
disputed truth  that  the  ordinary  and  general  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptizo,  in  the  time  of  Christ  and 
the  Apostles,  was  none  other  than  dip  or  immerse, 
just  as  the  ordinary  and  usual  meaning  of  phago 
and  pino  was  to  eat  and  drink. 

Many,  who  admit  that  the   Lord  in  His  commis- 


THE    COMMISSION    OF    CHRIST.  67 


rioii  has  prescribed  immersion  in  baptism,  do  not, 
however,  consider  this  mode  to  be  necessary  and 
essential,  but  imagine  that  it  is  quite  indifferent 
how  the  water  is  applied,  whether  you  immerse,  or 
wash,  or  pour,  or  sprinkle.  Here  we  ask  :  If  the 
Lord  has  prescribed  immersion,  then  is  not  this  act 
necessary  and  essential  to  constitute  baptism  ?  Can 
you  fulfill  a  command  to  immerse  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring?  If  you,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  would  un- 
dertake to  put  the  bread  under  the  sole  of  the  foot, 
and  pour  the  wine  on  the  top  of  the  head,  instead 
of  eating  and  drinking,  under  pretense  that  it  is 
quite  indifferent  in  what  manner  the  bread  and  wine 
are  used,  would  not  that  be  a  trifling  with  that  or- 
dinance ?  Likewise  when  you  say,  "  I  baptize  (that 
is  dip  or  immerse)  you  in  the  name  of  the  Sacred 
Trinity,"  and  meanwhile  do  not  dip,  but  sprinkle  or 
pour,  is  not  that  a  trifling  with  the  word  of  the  Lord 
and  with  His  holy  ordinance  ?  What  has  the  Lord 
commanded  ?  Is  it  not  a  great  presumption  to 
question  whether  His  commandments,  which  are 
plainly  designed  to  be  in  force  until  the  end  of  time, 
are  essential,  or  given  only  as  a  mere  shoic  ?  Y\~hich 
must  here  have  the  precedence,  the  Lord's  express 
command,  or  our  own  fancy  founded  on  rooted 
habits  and  an  old  abuse  ?  Let  us  learn  it  from  an 
example  !  Xaaman,  captain  of  the  host  of  the 
King  of  Assyria,  a  great  man  with  his  master,  was 
plagued  with  an  incurable  disease — the  leprosy. 
He  had  heard  that  the  prophet  Elisha,  in  Samaria, 


63  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


could  work  his  cure  ;  he  came,  therefore,  with  hi3 
horses  and  his  chariot,  and  stood  at  the  door  of  the 
prophet's  house.  "  And  Elisha  sent  a  messenger  to 
him,  saying  :  '  Go  and  wash  in  J6rdan  seven  times, 
and  thy  flesh  shall  come  again  to  thee,  and  thou 
shalt  be  clean.'  Then  Xaamau  was  wroth,  and 
went  away,  and  said:  'I  thought  he  would  come 
out  to  me,  and  stand  and  call  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord  his  God,  and  strike  his  hand  over  the  place, 
and  so  recover  the  leper.  Are  not  Abana  and 
Pharpar,  rivers  of  Damascus,  better  than  all  the 
waters  of  Israel  ?  may  I  not  wash  in  them  and  be 
clean  V  So  he  turned  and  went  away  in  a  rage. 
And  his  servants  came  near,  and  said,  ■  My  father, 
if  the  prophet  had  bid  thee  do  some  great  thing, 
wouldest  thou  not  have  done  it  ?  How  much  rather 
then  when  he  saith  to  thee,  "Wash  and  be  clean  V 
Then  went  he  down  and  dipped  himself  seven  times, 
according  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God,  and 
his  flesh  came  again  like  unto  the  flesh  of  a  little 
child,  and  he  was  clean."  2  Kings  v.  1-14.  Hence 
we  learn,  how  necessary  it  is  to  follow  faithfully  the 
express  command  of  God.  Had  Xaaman  dipped 
himself  a  hundred  times  in  the  waters  of  Abana 
and  Pharpar,  or  had  he  commanded  his  servants  to 
bring  him  a  little  water  from  the  Jordan  in  order 
to  pour  upon  his  head,  or  sprinkle  on  his  face,  he 
surely  would  never  have  been  freed  from  his  leprosy. 
God  never  deviates  from  his  express  will ;  but  we 
must  train  our  own  will  to  submit  implicitly  to  the 


THE    COMMISSION   OF   CHRIST.  09 


command  of  God,  however  our  reason,  fancy,  and 
taste  may  object.  If,  my  brother,  the  Lord  has 
expressly  commanded  you  to  be  immersed  in  water 
in  order  rightly  to  comply  with  His  commission, 
you  ought  to  be  immersed  at  once,  if  you  wish  to 
consider  yourself  as  duly  baptized. 

To  the  testimonies  of  distinguished  Pedobaptist 
divines  previously  quoted,  we  wish  "to  add  the  fol- 
lowing beautiful  and  expressive  words. 

Archibald  Hall  :  "  How  grand  and  awful  is 
that  mighty  preface  to  the  institution  of  Christian 
baptism  !  Matt,  xxviii.  IS.  Who  is  that  daring, 
insolent  worm,  that  will  presume  to  dispute  the 
authority,  or  change  the  ordinances  of  HIM,  who 
is  given  to  be  Head  over  all  things  to  the  Church  ? 
The  solemnity  of  this  ordinance  is  complete  :  and 
all  the  purposes  of  its  institution  are  secured  by  the 
authority  and  blessing  of  Christ.  His  laws  are  not 
subject  to  any  of  those  imperfections  which  are 
attendants  to  the  best-contrived  systems  among 
men,  and  frequently  need  explanations,  amend- 
ments, and  corrections.  It  is  most  dangerous  and 
presumptuous  to  add  any  ceremony,  or  to  join  any 
service,  on  any  pretense,  unto  Heaven's  appoint- 
ment." 


SECTION  III. 

THE   BAPTISM   AT   THE   FEAST   OF   PENTECOST. 

"Now  when  they  had  heard  this,  they  were  pricked 
in  their  hearts,  and  said  unto  Peter  and  to  the  rest 
of  the  Apostles,  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ? 
Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
for  the  remission  of  sins ;  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  unto 
you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar 
off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call. 
Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word,  were  bap- 
tized ;  and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto 
them  about  three  thousand  souls.  And  they  con- 
tinued stedfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fel- 
lowship, and  in  breaking  of  bread  and  in  prayers." 
Acts  ii.  37-42. 

REMARKS. 

Here  we  observe  how  the  Apostle  obeys  his 
Lord's  direction  in  the  commission.  He  does  not 
make  disciples  by  first  baptizing,  and  then  teaching ; 
but  he  begins  by  preaching,  and  does  not  undertake 
to  baptize  till  he  finds,  among  his  hearers,  such  as 
manifest  tokens  of  repentance  and  faith.  For  it 
(70) 


AT    IHK    FEAST    OF    PENTECOST.  71 


reads,  first,  that  the  hearers  of  Peter  were  pricked 
in  their  heart,  so  that  they  must  cry,  '•  What  shall 
we  do  ?"  Secondly,  that  they  were  exhorted  to 
repent  and  be  baptized,  for  the  remission  of  their 
sins.  Thirdly,  that  they  who  gladly  received  the 
word  of  the  Apostle  were  baptized,  and  "were 
added  to"  (or  joined)  the  church.  Further,  it  is 
said  of  them  who  were  thus  baptized  and  connected 
with  the  church,  that  they  "  continued  stedfast  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  Apostles" — that  is,  earnestly  and 
continually  heard  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles — 
"in  fellowship," — in  the  common,  brotherly  conver- 
sation, in  constantly  keeping-  themselves  together  in 
brotherly  union — "in  breaking  of  bread"' — in  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper — and  "  in  prayers  n 
— in  social  prayers. 

Such  was  the  order  of  the  Apostolic  church  at 
Jerusalem — the  true  mother-church  of  all  Christian 
churches,  which  should  afterward  be  organized  in 
the  same  way ;  for,  without  doubt,  this  is  recorded 
for  the  instruction  and  pattern  of  Christians  of  all 
times. 

From  the  39th  verse  of  our  text,  the  Pedobap- 
tists  have  endeavored  to  draw  an  evidence  for  infant 
baptism,  and,  in  support  of  it,  they  generally  quote, 
not  the  whole  answer  of  Peter,  but  only  a  part  of 
it,  viz.,  "the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren ;"  and  instead  of  explaining  the  nature  of  the 
promise,  as  the  Apostle  did.  by  referring  to  the  pre- 
diction in  Joel,  it  is  generally  referred  to  the  prom- 


72  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

ise  made  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  seed.  But  a  little 
consideration  of  the  connection  of  this  passage,  will 
lead  to  the  discovery  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with 
infant  baptism.  For,  1,  the  promise  which  is  alleged 
is  evidently  none  other  than  that  the  Apostle  had 
just  quoted  from  the  Prophet  Joel,  v.  17-21,  in 
which  it  is  promised  that  the  Lord,  in  the  latter 
days,  would  pour  out  of  His  Spirit  on  all  flesh,  and 
that  whosoever  should  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord 
should  be  saved.  "  Repent,"  says  Peter,  "and  be 
baptized,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  unto  you  is 
the  promise  which  I  have  just  recited."  2.  When 
it  further  reads,  "  and  to  your  children,  and  all  that 
are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call,"  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  word  "  chil- 
dren" does  not  signify  new-born  children  or  infants, 
but  descendants,  in  which  sense  the  word  children 
often  occurs  in  Scripture.  "  Children,"  in  this 
place,  corresponds  to  "  sons"  and  "  daughters" 
mentioned  by  the  Prophet  Joel,  who  would  "pro- 
phesy" and  "  see  visions."  This  addition,  "  as  many 
as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call,"  confines  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  promise  to  such  as,  by  the  promulgation 
of  the  gospel,  should  be  "called" — that  is,  effec- 
tually called,  converted — to  the  participation  of  the 
New  Testament  graces.  New-born  children,  there- 
fore, cannot  be  included  in  that  promise,  because 
they  cannot  as  such  be  said  to  be  "  called,"  or  con- 
verted by  the  call  of   the  gospel.     3.  If  Peter  had 


AT    THE   FEAST   OF   PENTECOST.  73 


meant  to  say  that  the  promise  quoted  from  Joel 
had  included  infants,  then,  even  those,  as  well  as  the 
adults,  should  on  that  occasion  have  been  baptized  ; 
but  that  they  were  not  baptized  is  evident,  as  it 
reads :  "  They  that  gladly  received  his  word  ;"'  they 
— and  none  else — "  were  baptized/'  Not  a  word 
in  the  whole  description  of  those  who  were  bap- 
tized on  that  occasion,  will  apply  to  new-born  chil- 
dren. 

Again,  from  this  passage  they  have  endeavored  to 
find  out  some  objections  against  the  true  mode  of 
baptism  by  immersion,  considering  it  improbable 
that  3000  should  have  been  immersed  in  water  in 
one  day,  and  that  in  Jerusalem  should  have  been 
found  sufficient  conveniences  to  immerse  so  many. 

In  regard  to  the  first  objection,  it  is  not  said  that 
3000  were  baptized  in  one  day,  but  only  that  about 
3000  souls  were  added  to  them  the  same  day.  But 
even  were  it  said,  it  is  not  improbable  that  the 
twelve  Apostles  could  have  performed  that  act  "  the 
same  day ;"  for  if  we  divide  3000  persons  among 
twelve,  it  gives  them  each  only  two  hundred  and 
fifty.  And  the  baptism  of  these  might  well  be  per- 
formed in  the  long  summer  afternoon  of  Pentecost. 
But  if  we  add  to  the  twelve  Apostles  the  other 
seventy,  Luke  x.  1,  who,  probably,  were  present, 
and  had  an  equal  right  to  baptize,  there  were  on 
that  occasion  eighty-two  administrators  of  baptism  ; 
and  this  gives  to  each  less  than  thirty-seven,  who 
could  easily  be  baptized  in  half  an  hour. 
7 


74  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


As  to  the  second  objection,  there  were  in  the 
Temple  ample  conveniences  for  immersion,  and  it 
does  not  appear  that  the  disciples  had  yet  been  ex- 
cluded from  the  privileges  of  the  sacred  place.  Luke 
xxiv.  53.  There  were  ten  brass  lavers,  each  of 
which  held  over  nine  barrels  of  water.  Besides, 
there  were  at  Jerusalem  baths  for  immersion  s/^ 
numerous,  that  the  digging  of  cisterns  for  such  use* 
was  a  trade.  It  has  also  been  shown  by  the  most 
accurate  travelers,  both  ancient  and  modern,  that 
there  were  at  least  six  public  fountains  and  pools 
within  a  mile  from  the  Temple,  suitable  for  the  im- 
mersion of  large  numbers  at  once.* 

TESTIMONIES. 

Dr.  Hammond  :  "  If  any  have  made  use  of  that 
very  unconcludent  argument,  (referring  to  this  pas- 
sage, Acts  ii.  39),  I  have  nothing  to  say  in  de- 
fense of  them.  The  word  children  there,  is  really 
the  posterity  of  the  Jews,  and  not  peculiarly  their 
infant  children,  "f 

Limborch:  By  the  Greek  word  tekna,  the  Apos- 
tles understand,  not  infants,  but  posterity ;  in  which 
signification  the  word  occurs  in  many  places  of  the 
Kew  Testament ;  see,  among  others,  John  viii.  39  : 

*  As  to  the  supply  of  water  at  Jerusalem,  see  Rev.  G.  W. 
Samson's  excellent  treatise,  in  "The  Design  of  Baptism,  etc." 
By  Irah  Chase,  D.D.     Boston,  1851,  pp.  111-136. 

f  Works,  vol.  i.,  p.  490. 


AT   THE    FEAST    OF    PENTECOST. 


75 


"If  ye  were  Abraham's  children,  ye  would  do  the 
works  of  Abraham."  Whence  it  appears,  that  the 
argument  which  is  very  commonly  taken  from  this 
passage  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  is  of  no  force, 
and  good  for  nothing.'''* 


*  Comment,  in  loc. 


-r--  /-.'HfP' 


SECTION  IV. 

PHILIP   BAPTIZING   AT   SAMARIA. 

11  Then  Philip  went  down  to  the  city  of  Samaria, 
and  preached  Christ  unto  them  ;  and  the  people, 
with  one  accord,  gave  heed  unto  those  things  which 
Philip  spake,"  hearing  and  seeing  the  miracles  which 
he  did.  And  there  was  great  joy  in  the  city.  But 
when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women."  Acts  viii.  5,  etc. 

REMARKS. 

Here  we  are  informed  that  at  Samaria  both  men 
and  women  were  baptized,  men  and  women  being 
expressly  and  specially  mentioned,  but  children  are 
not  mentioned.  Were  there  no  children,  then,  in 
Samaria  ?  Or  were  there  no  children  in  the  families 
of  the  converted.  Those  who  can  trace  out  such 
probabilities  of  there  being  children  in  the  household 
of  Lydia,  most  probably  an  unmarried  woman,*  can 
they  find  no  probability  that  there  were  children  in 
the  families  of  these  baptized  "men  and  icomen"? 

*  See  concerning  Lydin,  p.  9. 

06) 


PHILIP   BAPTIZING   AT   SAMARIA.  77 


"  Oh  !  no,"  we  hear  them  answer,  "  here  were  cer- 
tainly no  children;''  fur  if  they  admit  that  thero 
were  children,  the  admission  would  furnish  proof 
that  children  were  not  baptized. 

Children  are  here  excluded  from  baptism  not 
only  because  the  Holy  Spirit  has  omitted  to  add  to 
the  "men  and  women"  the  word  children,  but  be- 
cause it  is  said  of  those  who  were  baptized,  that 
"they  believed  Philip."  Had  it  only  been  said, 
11  When  they  heard  Philip,  they  were  baptized,  men, 
women,  and  children,"  there  would  have  been,  at 
least,  some  plausibility  in  pleading  for  the  baptism  of 
babes.  Even  then,  however,  it  would  have  been  in- 
cumbent on  any  one  pleading  for  infant  baptism  from 
such  language,  to  prove  that  these  children,  who  are 
classed  among  them  that  heard,  were  unconscious 
babes.  How  careful,  therefore,  has  the  Holy  Spirit 
here,  as  well  as  everywhere,  been,  not  to  furnish 
any  support  for  infant  baptism.  If  Philip  in  Sa- 
maria had  baptized  men,  women,  and  children,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  in  order  to  complete  the  account,  would 
have  mentioned  children  ;  for  we  cannot  imagine 
that  two  classes  of  them  who  were  baptized  would 
have  been  mentioned,  and  the  third  omitted.* 

*  Pedubaptist  missionaries  among  the  heathen  in  our  times, 
are  used  to  specify,  in  their  accounts,  even  the  children  that  are 
baptized.  Thus,  fur  instance,  one  writes  :  "  During  the  year  1S19, 
20  adults  and  21  children  were  baptized."  Another  :  "  On  the  first 
Sunday  of  this  month,  I  baptized  34  adults  and  their  children,  43* 
in  all."  Such  accounts  are  quite  natural  where  infant  baptism  pre- 
vails.   See  '•  Missionary  Register"  for  the  year  1821,  pp.  19,  294. 


78  CHETSTIAX    BAPTISM. 


But  why  are  "  men  and  women"  here  specilied, 
if  the  Holy  Spirit  had  not  intended  to  render  as- 
surance still  more  sure  ?  Had  the  account  said 
nothing  specially  of  the  baptism  of  women,  it  woald 
nevertheless  have  been  naturally  implied,  inasmuch 
as  the  Commission,  including  all  believing  disciples, 
would  have  fully  justified  the  baptism  of  women. 
But  to  render  the  thing  the  more  sure,  they  also 
are  expressly  and  specially  mentioned.  If,  therefore, 
the  Lord  had  intended  to  introduce  infant  baptism 
in  His  churches,  would  he  have  directed  Luke  ex- 
pressly to  mention  the  baptism  of  men  and  women, 
but  not  of  children  ?  How  are  we  to  account  for 
this  deficiency  both  here  and  everywhere  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  For  how  liberal  are  the  Scriptures 
elsewhere  in  mentioning  children  ?  How  often  does 
it  read,  "Men,  women,  and  children,"  even  under 
circumstances  far  less  important  than  here  ?*  There- 
fore, when,  on  the  one  hand,  we  see  such  an  evident 
particularity  in  specially  mentioning  women,  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  were  Pedobaptism  practiced, 
such  an  evident  deficiency — the  Holy  Spirit  having 
omitted  entirely  all  mention  of  "children" — we 
conclude  that  the  children  on  this  occasion  were  not 
admitted  to  baptism,  and  that,  consequently,  infant 
baptism  at  that  time  was  not  practiced. 


*  See,  for  instance.  XumK  xvi.  27;  xxxi.  9.  Deut.  ii.  34 
iii.  6.  2  Chron.  xx.  13.  Xeh.  xii.  43.  Jer.  xli.  16;  xliii.  6 
Matt.  xiv.  21:  xv.  ?,S  ;  xviii.  25.     Acts  xxi.  5. 


SECTION  V. 

THE   BAPTISM    OF   THE   ETHIOPIAN   EUNUCH. 

"  Then  Philip  opened  his  mouth,  and  began  at 
the  same  Scripture,  and  preached  unto  him  Jesus. 
And  as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  unto  a 
certain  water,  and  the  Eunuch  said  :  '  See,  here  is 
water ;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?  And 
Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart, 
thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  And  he  com- 
manded the  chariot  to  stand  still,  and  they  went 
down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch  :  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  caught  away  Philip,  and  the  Eunuch  saw  him 
no  more.  And  he  went  on  his  way  rejoicing."  Acts 
viii.  35-39. 

REMARKS. 

Here  we  learn  that  Philip,  before  he  baptizes  the 
Eunuch,  holds  forth  this  condition:  ''If  thou  be- 
lievest with  all  thine  heart."  Philip  might  have 
deemed  the  Eunuch — after  having  eagerly  heard 
the  Gospel  which  he  preached  to  him  on  immediate 
divine    direction — a   proper    subject    for   baptism. 

(79) 


80  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM, 


Even  his  earnest  request  for  it  might  have  con- 
firmed him  in  this  opinion.  But  he  cannot  and 
dares  not  baptize  him,  until  he  openly  professes  to 
"  believe  with  all  his  heart ;"  remembering,  no  doubt, 
that  baptism  was  appointed  only  for  believing  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  Nothing  can  demonstrate  more 
clearly  than  this,  that  a  declaration  of  faith  was 
indispensably  required  previous  to  baptism. 

We  also  learn  in  what  way  Philip  administered 
baptism.  Philip,  as  bound  by  the  Commission  of 
Christ,  had  informed  the  Eunuch  that  whosoever 
had  become  a  believer  on  Christ  should  also  imme- 
diately be  baptized ;  yet  the  Eunuch  speaks  not  a 
word  of  being  baptized,  until  he  comes  "  to  a  cer- 
tain water."  This  certainly  implies  that  baptism 
here  was  performed  by  immersion.  For  if  a  handful 
of  water  had  been  sufficient,  then  the  Eunuch  had 
not  needed  to  wait  for  baptism  till  he  had  discov- 
ered "a  certain  water;"  for  the  travelers  through 
those  deserts  (see  Acts  viii.  26,)  were  ordinarily 
amply  furnished  with  vessels  of  water  for  their 
journeys,  and  there  is  not  the  least  doubt  that  the 
noble  Eunuch  of  the  Queen  Candace,  on  his  long 
journey  would  have  been  supplied  with  such  con- 
veniences. Had  it,  therefore,  at  that  time  been 
customary  to  administer  baptism  only  by  pouring 
or  sprinkling,  the  Eunuch  would  not  have  cried 
out  from  great  joy,  "  See,  here  is  water,  what  doth 
hinder  V  Want  of  water  had  hindered  his  bap- 
tism, which  could  not  possibly  have  happened,  if 


BAPTISM    OF    THE    ETHIOPIAN    EUNUCH.     81 


Philip,  like  our  infant  sprinklers,  had  believed  and 
taught  that  "the  validity  of  baptism  does  not  at  all 
depend  on  the  quantity  of  water." 

Further,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch  came  to  the  water,  while  they  yet  were 
sitting  in  the  chariot,  vv.  36,  38.  If  baptism  had 
not  depended  on  the  quantity  of  water,  then  it  had 
been  most  natural,  in  this  situation,  to  send  one  of 
the  servants  for  a  bowlful,  instead  of  the  Eunuch 
and  Philip  themselves  alighting  from  the  chariot  in 
order  to  reach  the  water. 

To  these  circumstances  add,  that  the  words  used 
show  that  baptism  was  performed  by  immersion. 
For  Philip,  together  with  the  Eunuch,  did  not  only 
go  to  the  water,  in  order  there  to  place  himself  on 
the  shore,  and  take  a  little  water  in  his  hand  for 
pouring  or  sprinkling,  but  it  reads  that  they  "  went 
dozen  into  the  water,"  v.  38,  as  it  is  also  afterward 
said  that  "  they  came  up  out  of  the  water,"  v.  39. 
What  would  take  them  into  the  water,  if  a  hand- 
ful of  water  would  suffice  ? 

Let  it  be  observed,  also,  that  there  is  something 
very  peculiar  in  the  account  of  their  going  into  the 
water.  For  it  is  not  only  said,  "  they  went  into  the 
water,"  but  our  attention  is  fixed  on  the  fact  that 
they  "  both"  went  into  the  water.  This,  we  might 
think,  would  suffice.  Yet  the  Holy  Spirit  marks 
the  circumstance  still  more  precisely  and  adds,  "both 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch."  Can  any  one  imagine  that 
such  a  precision,  such  an  apparent  redundancy  of 


82  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


expression,  is  not  designed  to  teach  something  that 
the  Spirit  of  inspiration  foresaw  would  be.  denied  ? 
Had  the  water  been  deep  enough  at  the  edge,  the 
Eunuch  only  might  have  been  in  the  water,  and 
Philip  standing  on  the  margin  might  from  thence 
have  immersed  him.  But  in  this  recorded  case, 
both  the  baptizer  and  the  candidate  went  dozen  into 
the  water.  Would  it  have  been  necessary  so 
circumstantially  to  inform  us  of  this,  if  the  Holy 
Spirit  had  not  evidently  designed  to  show  us 
in  what  way  baptism  on  that  occasion  was  per- 
formed ? 

If  we  sum  up  all  these  circumstances,  and  also 
consider  that  the  word  baptizo,  according  to  the 
testimonies  of  all  linguists,  ordinarily  signifies  to 
immerse,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  baptism  on 
this  occasion  was  performed  by  immersion.  And 
if  baptism  on  this  occasion  was  performed  by  im- 
mersion, we  also  rightly  conclude  that  it  always 
must  have  been  performed  in  the  same  way.  For 
we  must,  undoubtedly,  assume  that  as  the  Apostles 
had  only  "  one  Lord"  and  "  one  faith,"  as  well  as 
"  one  baptism"  (Eph.  iv.  5),  so  they  also  had  only 
one  mode  to  perform  that  baptism.  We  cannot 
imagine,  that  one  would  have  baptized  by  sprink- 
ling, another  by  pouring,  a  third  by  immersion,  and 
that  they,  in  different  churches,  had  used  different 
modes ;  for  how  would  such  a  variety  and  incon- 
sistency have  been  received  by  people  who  were 
accustomed   so  rigidly,  precisely  and  consistently 


BAPTISM    OF   THE    ETHIOPIAN    EUNUCH.     83 


to  observe  the  injunctions  of  the  Old  Testament, 
while  the  Apostles  all  professed  that  they  had  one 
and  the  same  Commission  from  one  and  the  same 
Lord,  to  preach  one  and  the  same  doctrine  in  all 
places  ? 

TESTIMONIES. 

Dr.  Doddridge:  "It  would  be  very  unnatural 
to  suppose,  that  they  went  down  to  the  water  merely 
that  Philip  might  take  a  little  water  in  his  hand  to 
p<  ur  on  the  Eunuch.  A  person  of  his  dignity  had, 
no  doubt,  many  vessels  in  his  baggage,  on  such  a 
journey,  through  a  desert  country ;  a  precaution 
lutely  necessary  for  travelers  in  those  parts, 
and  never  omitted  by  them.''* 

Dr.  Quenstedt  (Lutheran)  :  "  Immersion  is 
similar  to  a  burial,  emersion  to  a  resurrection.  It 
reads,  Acts  viii.  38,  39,  that  Philip,  together  with 
the  Eunuch,  went  down  into  the  water,  and  baptized 
him  there  ;  and  it  is  added  that,  after  the  act  was 
performed,  they  both  again  came  up  out  of  the  water. 
Both  the  Eastern  and  the  "Western  church  retained 
for  a  long  time  the  use  of  immersion.99^ 

Chr.  Starke  (Lutheran)  :  "And  he  commanded 
the  chariot  to  stand  still;  and  they  went  down  both 
into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and  he 

*  Family  Expositor,  in  he. 

f  Antiq.  Bib.  part  1,  c.  i,  sect.  2,  num.  1. 


84 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


(Philip)  baptized  him  in  the  name  of  the  triune  God, 
by  immersion."* 

Calvin  :  "  Here  we  perceive  how  baptism  was 
administered  among  the  ancients,  for  they  immersed 
the  whole  body  in  water. "f 

*  Commentary  on  Acts  viii.  38. 
f  Commentary  on  Acts  viii.  38. 


SECTION  VI. 

THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

"  And  Ananias  went  his  way,  and  entered  into  the 
house  ;  and  putting  his  hand  on  him,  said,  Brother 
Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus  that  appeared  unto  thee 
in  the  way  as  thou  earnest,  hath  sent  me,  that  thou 
mightest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Acts  ix.  IT.  "  And  he  said,  the  God 
of  our  Fathers  hath  chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldest 
know  His  will,  and  see  that  Just  One,  and  shouldest 
hear  the  voice  of  His  mouth.  For  thou  shalt  be 
His  witness  unto  all  men  of  what  thou  hast  seen 
and  heard.  And  now,  why  tarriest  thou  ?  Arise, 
and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  xxii.  14-16.  "And 
immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been 
scales  ;  and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose, 
and  was  baptized."  ix.  18. 

REMARKS. 

The  words  of  Ananias  to  Saul,  "And  now  why 

tarriest  thou ?  Arise  and  be  baptized,"  should,  as 

Luther  expresses  himself,  M  be  written  in  letters  so 

large  as  to  fill  heaven  and  earth."     For  nothing  in 

8  (85) 


86  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


our  days  is  so  neglected  and  contemned  as  true 
Christian  baptism.  Many  Christians  neglect  it, 
as  they  imagine  themselves  to  have  been  bap- 
tized in  their  childhood;  others,  because  they  fear 
men  more  than  God,  and  prefer  the  praise  of  men 
to  that  of  God.  But  such  a  neglect  and  contempt 
is  most  disparaging  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  most 
injurious  to  the  individual,  and  to  Christendom  in 
general.  Xo  Christian  ought,  therefore,  to  waive 
the  subject,  or  give  himself  any  rest,  till  he  either 
can  before  God  sincerely  say,  u  I  thank  thee,  O 
Lord,  that  I  am  rightly  baptized,"  or  until,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  can  testify  that  he  has  used  every 
means  in  his  power  to  discover  and  receive  true 
baptism. 

It  has  been  argued  that  Ananias  could  not  con- 
sider Paul  to  be  a  believer,  previous  to  his  bap- 
tism, as  he  said,  "Arise,  and  wash  away  thy  sins." 
But  that  there  is  no  ground  in  these  words  for  such 
a  conclusion,  is  evident.  For  Saul  had  already 
received  a  new  heart,  and  his  enmity  against  the 
gospel  had  ceased.  The  roaring  lion  had  been 
changed  to  an  humble  lamb.  Saul,  raging  with 
murderous  intent,  had  become  a  penitent  suppliant, 
and  received  from  the  Lord  himself  this  testimony, 
"Behold,  he  prayeth  ;"  and  his  highest  desire  was 
to  know  what  the  Lord  would  have  him  to  do. 
Acts  ix.  6,  11.  He  had  also  already  been  declared 
to  be  a  chosen  vessel  to  the  Lord  (Acts  ix.  15)  ; 
whence  Ananias  calls  him  brother.     He  was,  there* 


THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  87 


fore,  known  to  Ananias  as  one  who  had  with  his 
heart  believed  on  Christ,  and  had  obtained  the  for- 
giveness of  sin. 

How  then,  it  may  be  asked,  is  this  command  to 
be  understood,  "Be  baptized,  and  u ash  away  thy 
sins?'7  Answer:  It  is  true,  the  forgiveness  of  sin 
is  here  declared  to  be,  in  one  way  or  another,  con- 
nected with  baptism.  But  how  can  any  one  wash 
away  his  sins,  or  obtain  forgiveness  of  sin  ?  Surely 
there  is  only  one  way,  and  that  is  by  faith.  As, 
therefore,  forgiveness  of  sin,  by  the  very  form  of 
language  employed,  is  associated  with  baptism,  so 
also  must  that  faith  without  which  forgiveness  can- 
not be  obtained,  be  understood  to  be  associated 
with  baptism.  And  as  confession  must  follow  faith, 
and  yet  is  said  to  save  (Rom.  x.  9,  10),  so  baptism 
may  follow  faith,  and  yet  be  said  to  wash  away  sins. 
In  both  cases  it  is  faith  alone  which  justifies.  In 
the  one  case  confession  is  spoken  of  as  the  expres- 
sion of  saving  faith,  in  the  other  case  baptism  is 
spoken  of  as  its  expression.  In  the  one  case  the 
Apostle  declares,  virtually,  that  faith  saves  when  it 
makes  a  man  confess  Christ ;  in  the  other,  Ananias 
intimates  that  it  would  save  when  it  led  to  the  par- 
ticular  mode  of  confessing  Christ,  viz.,  baptism. 
For  where  true  faith  is,  together  with  profession  of 
it  by  baptism,  there  is  salvation  promised.  See 
Mark  xvi.  16. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  Paul  could  not  have 
been  immersed,  because  it  is  said  that  he   "arose 


88  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


and  was  baptized."  Acts  ix.  18.  But  no  man  of 
real  scholarship  and  good  sense  will  defend  this 
assertion.  Besides,  Paul  has  told  us  himself  how 
he  was  baptized,  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  as  we  shall  see 
hereafter. 

TESTIMONIES. 

Burkitt  :  Be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins. 
As  water  cleanseth  the  body,  so  the  blood  of  Christ, 
signified  by  water,  washes  "away  the  guilt  of  the 
soul.  Where  true  faith  is,  together  with  the  pro- 
fession of  it  by  baptism,  there  is  salvation  promised. 
Mark  xvi.  16  :  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved."* 

"Wolf,  on  the  words,  "  Calling  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord  :"  "After  thou  hast  called  on  and  con- 
fessed the  name  of  the  Lord,  as  Messiah.  This 
must  of  old  precede  the  holy  act  of  baptism."f 

*  Expository  Notes  on  the  New  Testament,  in  loc. 
f  In  H.  A.  W.  Meyer's  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament, 
on  Acts  xxii.  16. 


SECTION  VII. 

THE   BAPTISM    OF   CORNELIUS   AND   HIS   FRIENDS. 

"And  He  commanded  us  to  preach  unto  the  peo- 
ple, and  to  testify  that  it  is  He  which  was  ordained 
of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead.  To 
Him  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that,  through 
His  name,  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  shall  receive 
remission  of  sins.  While  Peter  yet  spake  these 
words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard 
the  word.  And  they  of  the  circumcision  which  be- 
lieved, were  astonished,  as  many  as  came  with  Peter, 
because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  they  heard  them 
speak  with  tongues,  and  magnify  God.  Then  an- 
swered Peter,  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Acts 
x.  42-48. 

REMARKS. 

The  order  of  the  Commission  is  here  also  ob- 
served.    Peter  began  by  preaching ;   and  never  a 
word  of  baptism  is  found  till  the  people  had  heard 
8*  (89) 


90  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


the  gospel,  had  received  the  Holy  Spirit,  spoken 
with  tongues,  and  magnified  God.  Then,  and  not 
till  then,  Peter  pleads  for  their  baptism  ;  and  what 
should  be  particularly  observed,  he  pleads  for  it 
upon  the  ground  of  their  being,  most  evidently,  true 
believers,  and  as  having  received  the  Holy  Ghost. 
His  language,  in  verse  47,  implies,  that  if  they  did 
not  appear  to  be  regenerate  persons,  any  oue  might 
object  to  their  baptism  ;  but,  as  they  had  given 
evidences  that  could  not  be  disputed,  he  infers,  no 
one  could  deny  the  propriety  of  their  being  bap- 
tized. Consequently,  as  evidently  as  words  can 
express  it,  professed  believers  only  were  here  bap- 
tized. 


SECTION  Till. 

THE    BAPTISM    OF   LYDIA   AND    HER   HOUSEHOLD. 

11  On  the  Sabbath  we  went  out  of  the  city  by  a 
river  side,  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made  ;  and 
we  sat  down,  and  spake  unto  the  women  which  re- 
sorted thither.  And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia, 
a  seller  of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  which 
worshiped  God,  heard  us  ;  whose  heart  the  Lord 
opened,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things  which 
were  spoken  of  Paul.  And  when  she  was  baptized, 
and  her  household,  she  besought  us,  saying,  If  ye 
have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come 
into  my  house,  and  abide  there.  And  she  con- 
strained us."  Acts  xvi.  13-15. 

REMARKS. 

Before  a  Pedobaptist  can  urge  this  text  in  favor 
of  his  doctrine,  the  following  points  must  first  be 
certainly  proved  :  That  Lydia,  at  this  time,  or 
ever,  had  a  husband.  That  she  had  children,  and 
children  then  in  infancy.  That  these  children  were 
with  her  at  PhilippL  And  that  such  children  were 
actually  baptized. 

On  all  this  the   Scriptures  tell   us  nothing,  and 

(91) 


92  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


all  the  circumstances  speak  against  it.  For  with 
respect  to  the  first  point,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed, 
that  Lydia  ever  had  a  husband,  because  she  herself 
was  engaged  in  business,  for  which  she  had  been 
obliged  to  travel  a  great  distance  (she  was  "  a  sel- 
ler of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira"),  and  especi- 
ally as  such  a  husband  never  is  mentioned,  as  it  is 
distinctly  said  they  came  to  the  house  of  Lydia. 
Acts  xvi.  40.  Secondly,  it  is  certain  that  thousands 
are  married  without  having  children ;  that  thou- 
sands of  households  with  children  have  none  under 
the  years  of  discretion  ;  and  that  Lydia,  if  she  had 
such  children,  most  likely  would  have  been  unable  to 
engage  in  business.  With  respect  to  the  third, 
we  consider  that  if  Lydia  had  infants,  she  would 
scarcely  have  been  able  to  take  them  along  with 
heron  such  a  long  and  troublesome  journey;  for 
we  find  from  the  text  that  Lydia  had  come  from 
her  home  at  Thyatira  to  sell  purple,  and  for  her 
business  hired  or  bought  a  house  at  Philippi,  which 
city  was  about  three  hundred  miles  distant  from 
Thyatira.  And  as  to  the  fourth,  it  cannot  from  the 
words  "  and  her  household"  be  inferred,  that  all 
in  the  house  were  baptized,  even  if,  which  is  utterly 
impossible,  all  the  three  preceding  points  could  be 
proved ;  for  this  and  the  like  phrases  include  only 
all  u-ho  are  properly  qualified.  See,  for  instance, 
1  Sam.  i.  21-23,  where  it  is  related  that  Elkana 
went  up,   with   u  all  his  house,"  to   offer  unto  the 


LYDIA    AND    HER   HOUSEHOLD.  93 


Lord  iii  Shiloh  ;  and  yet  Hannah,  his  wife,  together 
with  her  infant  son,  remained  home  at  Ramah. 

It  is  likely  that  her  house  consisted  of  servants 
who  assisted  her  in  her  business.  These,  or  whoso- 
ever formed  her  household,  must,  through  the 
preaching  of  Paul,  have  been  led,  together  with  her- 
self, to  believe  on  Christ.  For  according  to  the 
Commission,  and  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  on  all 
other  occasions,  none  but  those  who  were  properly 
qualified,  or  believers,  could  have  been  baptized. 
As  Cornelius  "feared  God  with  all  his  house''  (Acts 
x.  2),  as  the  nobleman  at  Capernaum  "believed 
and  his  whole  house"  (John  iv.  53),  and  as  Crispus 
"believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house"  (Acts 
xviii.  8),  so  it  appears  from  the  baptism  of  Lydia 
and  her  household,  that  she  with  all  her  house  be- 
lieved. 


£3. 


<fht>.    ll*tt« 


SECTION  IX. 

THE   BAPTISM   OF   THE   PHILIPPIAN   JAILER. 

"And  the  keeper  of  the  prison  awaking  out  of  his 
sleep,  and  seeing  the  prison  doors  open,  he  drew 
out  his  sword,  and  would  have  killed  himself,  sup- 
posing that  the  prisoners  had  been  fled.  But  Paul 
cried  with  a  loud  voice,  saying,  Do  thyself  no  harm, 
for  we  are  all  here.  Then  he  called  for  a  light,  and 
sprang  in,  and  came  trembling,  and  fell  down  be- 
fore Paul  and  Silas.  And  brought  them  out,  and 
said,  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  And  they 
said,  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou 
shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house.  And  they  spake 
unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were 
in  his  house.  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of 
the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes,  and  was  bap- 
tized, he  and  all  his,  straightway.  And  when  he 
had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  be- 
fore them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all 
his  house."  Acts  xvi.  2T-34. 

REMARKS. 

The  jailer  conducts  Paul  and  Silas  out  from 
the  inner  prison,  and  asks,  trembling,  "Sirs,  what 

(94) 


THE    PHILIPPIAX    JAILER.  95 


must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?"  To  this  lie  receives  a 
direct  answer,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  he  saved,  and  thy  house."  By  this 
answer  it  cannot  be  meant  that  the  household  of 
the  jailer  should  be  saved  only  through  his  own 
faith  ;  but,  if  they  also  believed,  they  should  be  en- 
titled to  the  same  spiritual  and  everlasting  blessings 
with  himself;  which  Paul  might  the  rather  add,  as 
it  is  probable  that  many  of  them  at  the  great  earth- 
quake (see  Acts  xvi.  26)  might  have  attended  the 
master  of  the  family  into  the  dungeon. 

The  text  most  clearly  represents  the  household 
of  the  jailer  as  a  believing  house,  by  first  saying 
that  Paul  and  Silas  "  spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord 
unto  him,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house;"  and 
further  that  the  jailer  "rejoiced,  believing  in  God 
with  all  his  house."  If,  therefore,  children  were  to 
be  found  in  this  house,  the  text  certainly  speaks 
only  of  such  children  as  could  hear,  perceive,  and 
believe  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  None  can 
reasonably  say  that  new-born  children  were  among 
those  that  heard  "the  word  of  the  Lord"  and  "be- 
lieved in  God."  Xow,  all  who  had  heard  and  be- 
lieved the  word  of  the  Lord  were  baptized,  but  no 
others.  For  as,  in  the  first  place,  it  reads,  "They 
spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  unto  all  that  were  in 
his  house,"  so  it  reads,  in  the  second  place,  "  lie 
was  baptized,  he  and  all  his."  The  one  expression 
extends  just  as  far  as  the  other. 

In  our  text  nothing  is  specified  in  regard  to  the 


96  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM 


mode.  But  the  very  word  baptizo,  signifying  the 
act  of  baptism,  teaches  us  that  even  here,  as  every- 
where, immersion  was  practiced.  To  this  no  ob- 
stacle was  to  be  found  in  the  circumstances.  For 
in  the  first  place,  the  river  Strymon  ran  close  by, 
and  nothing  militates  against  the  supposition  that 
the  jailer  might  have  been  baptized  in  this  river. 
For  on  a  closer  consideration  of  the  text,  all  ap- 
pears to  have  taken  place  in  the  following  order. 
First,  the  jailer  brought  Paul  and  Silas  out  of  the 
"  inner  prison,"  and  said,  "  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to 
be  saved  ?"  v.  30.  Then  he  brought  them  into  his 
house  ;  for  it  is  added  that  "they  spake  unto  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house."  v.  32.  Next  "he  took  them,"  or  as  it 
may  read,  according  to  the  original,  "  took  them 
aside,"  and  "  washed  their  stripes."  But  whither 
did  he  take  them  aside,  in  order  to  wash  their 
stripes  ?  Probably  to  a  near  water.  There  he  also 
might,  "straightway  the  same  hour  of  the  night," 
have  been  baptized,  and  all  his.  v.  33.*  Finally, 
he  again  brought  them  home,  or  rather  wpf  to  his 

*  On  this  verse  the  Lutheran  Superintendent,  Dr.  IT.  A.  "W. 
Meyer,  makes  the  following  remark  :  "  Paralabon  autous — 
eleusen  ;  he  took  them  aside  and  washed.  A  graphic  representa- 
tion. He  probably  brought  them  to  a  near  water,  where  the 
baptism  of  the  jailer  and  his  household  was  then  immediately 
performed." — Commentary  on  the  New  Testament. 

f  "The  office-house  of  the  jailer  is  to  be  thought  of  as  built 
above  the  prisons." — Meyer. 


THE   PHILIPPIAX   JAILER.  97 


house,  and  entertained  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing 
in  God  with  all  his  house,  v.  34. 

If  the  baptism  of  the  jailer  and  his  household 
had  been  performed  by  pouring  a  little  water,  or 
sprinkling,  it  would  have  been  better  to  remain 
within  the  house  in  the  dead  hour  of  the  night,  than 
to  go  out.  Thus  every  circumstance  goes  to  prove 
that  baptism  was  administered  either  in  the  river 
Strymon,  or  some  pool,  or  other  reservoir  of  water. 
There  could  not  be  any  want  of  conveniences  for 
immersion,  as  it  is  known  that,  at  this  time  and 
place,  every  public  building  was  provided  with  water 
reservoirs.  Therefore,  it  is  also  the  opinion  of  the 
celebrated  Grotius,  that  the  baptism  in  question 
was  performed  in  the  bath  connected  with  the 
prison-house,  over  which  the  jailer  had  superinten- 
dence. The  circumstances,  therefore,  on  that  occa- 
sion, are  so  far  from  rendering  baptism  by  immersion 
improbable,  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  impera- 
tively demand  it. 

Finally,  even  here,  we  learn  how  intimately  bap- 
tism was  connected  with  faith  in  Christ,  that  it  must 
take  place  straightway,  the  same  hour  of  the  night, 
and  could  not  be  deferred  to  a  more  convenient 
time;  whence  also  hospitality  mast  be  postponed 
in  behalf  of  this  holy  act.  This  should  teach  every 
believer,  who  is  convinced  of  his  not  being  yet 
rightly  baptized,  not  to  put  off  this  important  and 
necessarv  dutv. 


SECTION  X. 

PAUL    BAPTIZING   AT    CORINTH. 

M  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  be- 
lieved on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house  ;  and  many 
of  the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed  and  were  bap- 
tized/' Acts  xviii.  8.  "Is  Christ  divided  ?  was  Paul 
crucified  for  you  ?  or  were  ye  baptized  in  the  name 
of  Paul  ?  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you, 
but  Crispus  and  Gains.  Lest  any  should  say  that 
I  had  baptized  in  my  own  name.  And  I  baptized 
also  the  household  of  Stephanas  :  besides,  I  know 
not  whether  I  baptized  any  other.  For  Christ  sent 
me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel."  1  Cor. 
i.  13-17.  "Ye  know  the  house  of  Stephanas,  that 
it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have 
addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints." 
xvi.  15. 

REMARKS. 

The  assurance  of  Paul  that  he  was  not  sent  to 
baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel,  exposes  in  the 
strongest  light  the  fatal  error  of  those  who  speak 
of  discipling  by  baptism.  For  while  our  opponents 
insist,  that  Christ  ordered  his  eleven  Apostles  to 
disciple  all  nations  bv  baptizing  them  ;    he   who 

(98) 


PAUL    BAPTIZING    AT    C0K1STH.  99 


labored  more  abundantly  than  they  all  tells  us,  that 
he  was  not  sent,  comparatively  speaking,  to  baptize 
even  those  that  believed.  Consequently,  he  was 
not  sent  to  make  disciples  in  that  way  for  which  our 
opposers  plead,  butb  j  preaching  five  gospel.  Nay, 
so  far  from  thinking  it  would  have  been  his  happi- 
ness to  have  made  a  multitude  of  the  Corinthians 
disciples  by  baptizing  them,  he  thanks  God  he  had 
baptized  but  very  few ;  and  this  he  does  while 
claiming  the  honor  of  having  been  the  favored  in- 
strument of  converting  a  great  part  of  those  that 
were  saints  in  the  city  of  Corinth.  See  1  Cor.  iv. 
15.  It  seems,  therefore,  as  if  Paul  had  not  learned 
that  easy  and  expeditious  way  of  making  disciples, 
for  which  our  brethren  contend. 

Although  only  Crispus  is  here  said  to  have  been 
baptized,  and  nothing  is  mentioned  concerning  the 
baptism  of  his  household,  yet  the  conclusion  is 
necessary  that  his  household  also  was  baptized  ;  for 
it  is  said  that  "  Crispus  believed  on  the  Lord,  with 
all  his  house."  This  passage  reflects  a  clear  light 
on  the  house  of  Lydia,  which  is  related  to  have 
been  baptized,  without  any  express  mention  of  their 
faith.  For  if  any  one,  from  the  fact  that  the  house 
of  Lydia  is  not  expressly  said  to  have  been  believ- 
ing, would  infer  that  the  baptism  of  her  household 
was  a  necessary  consequence  of  her  faith,  without 
their  own,  one  may  say,  on  the  same  principle,  that 
Crispus  only  was  baptized  ;  because  it  is,  indeed, 
stated  that  he  ''believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his 


100  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


house,"  and  nothing  is  said  of  the  baptism  of  the 
household,  but  only  of  that  of  Crispus.  But  that 
the  household  also  was  baptized,  is  certain,  because 
the  Lord  has  commanded  to  baptize  believers.  In 
the  same  way  you  may  also  infer  that,  when  the 
house  of  Lydia  is  said  to  have  been  baptized,  bub 
nothing  is  expressly  mentioned  concerning  the 
faith  of  the  baptized  persons,  they,  however,  must 
have  believed,  because  the  Commission  authorizes 
the  baptism  of  none  but  believers. 

Finally,  as  to  the  house  of  Stephanas  (the  last 
one  who  is  said,  in  Scripture,  to  have  beeu  bap- 
tized), even  this  is  evidently  represented  as  believ- 
ing. For  it  is  said,  that  this  house  was  "the  first 
fruits"  of  the'  word  in  Achaia,  and  that  "  they" 
(the  members  of  the  same  house)  "  have  addicted 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints."  They 
were  the  first  household  that  had  been  converted 
to  Christ  in  this  district,  and  the  whole  family 
exerted  themselves  in  acts  of  zeal  and  charity  in 
reference  to  their  fellow  Christians,  especially  the 
poorer  or  more  afflicted,  so  that  there  was  not  a 
member  of  the  whole  house  that  did  not  partake  in 
it.  Nor  can  any  reply  that  possibly  they  were 
baptized  in  infancy,  but  had  now  grown  to  man- 
hood ;  for  only  five  years  had  elapsed  from  Paul's 
first  entrance  into  Achaia,  of  which  Corinth  was 
the  capital.  Hence  it  appears,  the  baptized  house- 
hold here  also  was  a  believing  household. 


SECTION  XL 

REFLECTION    ON   THE   BAPTISM   OF   HOUSEHOLDS. 
GENERAL   REMARKS. 

Now  we  have  examined  all  the  places  in  the 
New  Testament  where  whole  households  are  said 
to  have  been  baptized,  and  as  we  have  nowhere 
previously  found  any  instance  of  infant  baptism,  so 
neither  in  the  accounts  of  the  baptism  of  the  house- 
holds now  under  consideration.  Had  it  been  the 
constant  practice  of  the  Apostles  to  baptize  infants 
together  with  their  parents,  we  should  have  reason 
to  expect,  and,  no  doubt,  should  have  found,  in 
various  places  of  Scripture,  baptisms  of  children 
mentioned,  as  well  as  of  adults,  because  we  else- 
where in  Scripture  very  often  fiud  children  specially 
mentioned  with  the  adults,  as  has  before  been 
shown.*  Yea,  we  infer  that  this  must  have  been  a 
fact  in  many  instances,  because  we  find  in  the  New 
Testament  many  thousands  of  adults  believing  and 
being  baptized.     See  Acts  ii.  41  ;  iv.  4;  v.  14.  &c. 

While  Pedobaptists  must  concede  that  from  the 
baptized  households  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment no  conclusive  argument  can  be  drawn  in  favor 

*  ice  p.  78. 

9*  (101) 


102  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


of  infant  baptism,  they  allege  in  self-defence  that  we 
are  bound  to  show  that  no  children  in  those  house- 
holds were  baptized,  before  we  are  authorized  to 
reject  infant  baptism  :  and  the  more  so,  as,  in  the 
instances  of  baptized  households,  children  are  not 
expressly  excluded  from  baptism. 

To  this  we  answer  in  the  first  place  :  On  us  no 
such  duty  is  incumbent ;  for  we  have  already  shown, 
from  the  Commission,  xcho  are  to  be  baptized,  and 
so  far  as  we  are  concerned  it  is  sufficient  to  prove 
that  the  baptism  of  households  is  not  opposed  to  our 
explanation  of  the  Commission,  on  which  we  chiefly 
rest  our  argument.  If  we  were  bound  to  prove,  by 
special  examples,  the  falsehood  of  all  errors,  it 
would  lead  to  the  grossest  absurdities.  Thus,  for 
instance,  it  would  be  our  duty  by  special  examples 
to  prove  that  the  Apostles  did  not  give  the  Lord's 
supper  to  new-born  children,  a  custom  still  observed 
by  a  great  many  Pedobaptists. 

On  the  contrary,  as  it  is  conceded  by  all,  that  be- 
lievers' baptism  is  instituted  by  the  Lord  ;  and,  as  a 
ground  for  another  baptism,  viz.,  infant  baptism,  is 
sought  by  Pedobaptists,  it  is  their  imperative  duty 
to  exhibit  some  divine  commandment  to  baptize 
new-born  children  ;  for  such  can  by  no  means  be 
included  in  the  Commission.  But  if  they  are  not 
able  to  do  this — as  they  certainly  never  will  be — 
and,  in  default  of  positive  command,  are  anxious  to 
find,  in  any  example  of  Scripture,  a  support  for 
their  practice,  that  example,  at  least,  must  be  dis- 


THE    BAPTISM    OF    HOUSEHOLDS.  103 


tinct,  so  that  every  one  may  say  :  Behold,  here  we 
have  now  a  clear  proof  that  the  Apostles  also  were 
accustomed  to  baptise  new-born  children.  If  they 
cannot  do  this,  and  are  compelled  to  concede  that 
it  is  uncertain  whether  infants  were  baptized  by  the 
Apostles  or  not,  then  their  house  is  built  on  the 
sand — they  rest  only  on  vain  human  imaginations. 

To  the  objection  before  stated  that,  as  the  chil- 
dren are  not  ejyressly  excepted,  it  is  thence  to  be 
inferred  that  they  also  were  baptized,  we  answer  in 
the  second  place  :  The  narrative  needs  not  ex- 
pressly to  except  them,  as  none  but  believers  are 
included  in  the  Commission,  according  to  which, 
every  baptism  in  all  times  ought  to  be  administered. 
If  the  Commission  does  not  include  new-born  chil- 
dren, are  they  not  in  the  baptism  of  households  al- 
ways necessarily  to  be  excluded  ?  Xo  truth  can  be 
more  evident  than  that  the  baptism  of  the  house- 
holds, so  often  mentioned,  contains  no  evidence  for 
infant  baptism. 

When  Pedobaptists  object  to  us  that  we,  accord- 
ing to  our  views,  scarcely  would  be  able,  with  Paul, 
to  baptize  whole  households,  we  answer :  We  now 
find  that  as  often  as  whole  households  believe 
among  us,  whole  households  are  baptized  ;  and  it 
is  by  no  means  uncommon  for  Baptist  missionaries 
and  preachers  actually  to  baptize  whole  households 
— as  may  be  abundantly  seen  in  the  Journals  of  the 
denomination. 


104  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


TESTIMONIES. 

Dr.  A.  Xeander  :  "  The  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism was  remote  from  this  (Apostolical)  age.  From 
the  examples  of  household  baptism,  infant  baptism 
can  by  no  means  be  inferred  ;  for  the  passage,  1 
Cor.  xvi.  15,  shows  the  incorrectness  of  such  a  con- 
clusion. It  is  there  made  evident  that  the  whole 
family  of  Stephanas  baptized  by  Paul,  consisted 
purely  of  adults.  Not  only  the  late  appearance  of 
any  express  mention  of  infant  baptism,  but  the  long 
continued  opposition  to  it  leads  to  the  conclusion 
that  it  was  not  of  Apostolical  origin."* 

Dr.  H.  A.  W.  Meyer  :  "  Appeal  is  made  to 
these  passages,  Acts  xvi.  15,  33  ;  xviii.  8  ;  and  to 
1  Cor.  i.  16,  in  order  to  prove  the  custom  of  infant 
baptism  in  the  Apostolic  age,  or  at  least,  to  show 
its  probability,  but  without  reason.  For  that  the 
baptism  of  children  was  not  in  use  at  that  time 
appears  evidently  from  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  where  Paul 
could  not  have  written,  '  Else  were  your  children 
unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy,1  if  the  children 
had  been  ecclesiastically  holy  by  virtue  of  their 
baptism,  and  not  only  of  their  relation  to  the  Chris- 
tian parents.  Hence,  if  there  were  children  in  the 
families  mentioned  in  the  Acts,  and  in  1  Cor.  i.  16, 
who  were  incapable  of  attaining  to  a  perception  of 
faith  by  means  of  instruction,  we  must  decide  that 

*  Meander's  Apottolic  Ago,  vol.  i.,  p.  140. 


THE   BAPTISM    OF    HOUSEHOLDS. 


105 


they  were  excluded  from  the  baptism  which  the 
other  members  of  the  household  received.  The 
readers  understood  that  exclusion  as  a  matter  of 
course,  since  they  knew  the  custom  was  not  to  bap- 
tize little  children.91* 

*  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  on  Acts  xvi.  15. 


hltM 


SECTION   XII. 

BAPTISM   OF    TWELVE   DISCIPLES   AT    EPHESUS. 

"  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  while  Apollos  was 
at  Corinth,  Paul  having  passed  through  the  upper 
coasts,  came  to  Ephesus ;  and  finding  certain  disci- 
ples, he  said  unto  them,  Have  ye  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  since  ye  believed  ?  And  they  said  unto  him, 
we  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any 
Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Unto  what 
then  were  ye  baptized?  And  they  said,  Unto 
John's  baptism.  Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  bap- 
tized with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto 
the  people,  That  they  should  believe  on  him  which 
should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus. 
When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  And  when  Paul  had  laid 
his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on 
them  ;  and  they  spake  with  tongues,  and  prophesied. 
And  all  the  men  were  about  twelve." — Acts  xix.  1. 

REMARKS. 

That  the  twelve  disciples  here  mentioned  were 
rebaptized  by  Paul  is  evident  from  the  original,  and 
is  conceded  by  most  commentators  in  our  time. 

That  these  disciples  were  not  previously  baptized 
by  John  the  Baptist,  or  with  his  true  baptism,  may 
(106) 


THE    DISCIPLES   AT   BPHKSUS.  107 


be  concluded  from  the  following  reasons  :  1.  The 
question  of  Paul,  "  Have  ye  received  the  Holy 
Ghost" — that  is,  the  extraordinary  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which,  in  the  Apostolic  age,  was  imparted 
in  connection  with  baptism — "since  ye  believed?" 
obviously  implies  that,  in  his  apprehension,  their 
conversion  was  of  recent  date,  at  least  subsequent 
to  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the  season  of 
Pentecost.  2.  The  remarks  of  Paul  in  v.  4,  re- 
specting what  John  taught  "  the  people,"  are  most 
naturally  understood  as  addressed  to  such  as  had 
never  enjoyed  John's  personal  instruction.  3.  The 
ignorance  of  those  men  respecting  the  Holy  Spirit, 
does  not  accord  with  the  supposition  that  they  had 
been  instructed  and  baptized  by  John,  in  whose 
preaching  the  Holy  Spirit  held  a  prominent  place. 
Comp.  Matt.  iii.  11;  Mark  i.  8;  John  i.  33. 
These  disciples  lived  about  nine  hundred  miles  from 
the  district  where  John  baptized,  and  it  was  more 
than  twenty  years  since  the  ministry  of  John  had 
ceased.  5.  The  Scriptures  nowhere  teach  that  any 
of  John's  disciples,  as  such,  had  a  right  to  baptize, 
especially  after  the  ministry  of  John  had  ceased, 
and  the  Lord  had  commanded  His  Apostles  to  bap- 
tize in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  The  text 
does  not  say  that  the  twelve  disciples  were  baptized 
with,  but  "  unto7''  the  baptism  of  John,  that  is,  unto 
the  observance  of  what  this  baptism  required. 

These  disciples  were,  consequently,  rebaptized, 
not  because  the  baptism  of  John  was  not  valid  as 
Christian  baptism,  but  because  they  had  not  received 


108  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


the  true  baptism  of  John,   and  were  deficient  In 
their  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation. 

That,  however,  these  men  believed  on  Christ,  and 
after  farther  instruction,  were  proper  subjects  of  true 
baptism,  is  evident,  partly  because  they  are  called 
"  disciples,"  that  is,  disciples  of  Christ,  v.  1 ;  partly 
because  Paul  considered  them  as  Christians  who 
believed,  v.  2 ;  and  partly  because,  as  soon  as  they 
had  received  true  baptism,  they  also  received  the 
extraordinary  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  that  they 
spoke  with  tongues  and  prophesied,  v.  6. 

By  what  authority  the  Baptists  are  branded  with 
the  name  of  "Anabaptists,"  or  rebaptizers,  we  may 
learn  from  this  passage.  Paul  did  not  here  perform 
an  actual  rebaptism,  inasmuch  as  the  irregular  bap- 
tism which  the  twelve  disciples  previously  had  re- 
ceived, could  not  be  accounted  as  a  real  baptism. 
And  still  less  do  the  Baptists  perform  a  rebaptism, 
in  baptizing  those  who  in  their  infancy  have  been 
sprinkled  or  poured.  For  if  Paul  rightly  consid- 
ered the  irregular  baptism  of  the  twelve  disciples  as 
a  nullity,  still  more  reason  do  we  have  so  to  con- 
sider the  baptism  of  infants.  The  former  had,  in- 
deed, some  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation  ; 
these  have  none  at  all.  The  former  are,  indeed,  said 
to  have  been  "  disciples,"  and  to  have  "believed;" 
of  the  latter  the  Scriptures  are  in  this  respect 
entirely  silent.  The  former  must  also  have  received 
the  true  form  of  baptism,  by  immersion  of  the  whole 
body  ;  but  the  latter,  in  most  instances,  have  never 
received  the  ordinance  in  this  form. 


SECTION  XIII. 

PASSAOES  IN  THE  EPISTLES  WHICH  CONTAIN  AN  EX- 
PRESS ALLUSION  TO  THE  MODE  AND  THE  DESIGN 
OF    BAPTISM. 

"Know  yo  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  bap- 
tized into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  H13 
death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  Him  by  bap- 
tism into  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so 
we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Rom.  vi. 
3,4. 

"  Buried  with  Him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are 
risen  with  Him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation 
of  God,  who  hath  raised  Him  from  the  Dead."  Col. 
ii.  12. 

REMARKS. 

Baptism  is  here  by  the  Apostle  compared  with 
a  burial.  In  the  oue  passage  the  Christians  are 
said  to  be  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  and  in  the 
other,  "buried  with  Him  in  baptism."  As  Christ 
was  laid  in  the  grave,  and  a  stoue  was  placed  at  its 
entrance,  so  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  covered 
and  hidden  from  the  eyes  of  men  ;  so  the  candidate 
10  (109) 


110  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


as  a  believer  in  fellowship  with  Christ,  is  laid  in  the 
water  and  covered  by  it.  And  again,  as  Christ 
was  raised  up  from  the  grave  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father ;  so  the  baptized  believer  is  raised  from  the 
watery  grave,  to  walk  in  newness  of  life.  Baptism, 
administered  by  immersion,  is,  consequently,  a  sig- 
nificant emblem  of  our  fellowship  of  spirit  with 
Christ  both  in  his  death  and  resurrection.  No 
other  mode  of  baptism  would  have  been  a  proper 
emblem  of  this  burial  and  resurrection.  If,  for  in- 
stance, baptism  had  consisted  in  washing,  pouring 
or  sprinkling,  Paul  never  could  have  spoken  of 
burial  by  or  in  baptism,  as  there  would  have  b(  en 
no  resemblance  between  such  an  application  of 
water  and  a  burial,  and,  consequently,  it  would  not 
have  been  proper  to  hold  forth  baptism  as  an  em- 
blem of  burial.  But  between  immersion  in  water 
and  a  burial  is  an  obvious  resemblance  ;  whence 
also  the  Holy  Spirit  has  used  the  act  of  baptism  as 
a  beautiful  and  proper  emblem  of  our  burial  and 
resurrection  with  Christ. 

Against  those  who  suppose  that  the  burial  here 
mentioned  has  no  reference  to  baptism,  but  is  a 
mere  spiritual  act  in  the  soul,  it  may  be  observed 
that  the  Apostle  expressly  says,  that  we  are  buried 
"  by  baptism"  and  "in  baptism,"  not  only  by  fai  h. 
The  supposition  that  here  is  meant  only  a  spiritual 
burial  is,  therefore,  directly  opposed  to  the  clear 
meaning  of  the  word  of  God,  which  teaches  that 
the  baptized  is  buried  by  and  in  the  act  of  baptism. 


PASSAGES    IX    THE    EPISTLES.  Ill 


The  Apostle  had  previously  spoken  of  the  internal 
change  of  man  by  faith  in  Christ,  as  a  death  to  sin 
(v.  2)  ;  here  he  speaks  of  the  profession  of  Christ 
and  of  His  death  by  the  external  act  of  baptism,  as 
the  visible  exponent  of  our  vital  faith. 

Here,  consequently,  we  have  an  important  ex- 
planation of  the  true  import  of  the  word  baptize 
[immerse],  as  well  as  of  the  necessity  and  design  of 
"  going  down  into,"  and  "coming  up  out  of  the  water" 
— of  baptizing  in  the  Jordan,  and  where  "there  was 
much  wafer" — phrases  which  we  find  in  connection 
with  baptism.  We  here  find  God's  own  explanation 
of  His  own  Commission  concerning  baptism,  and 
herein  we  have  to  admire  His  wisdom  and  good- 
ness. The  mass  of  readers  do  not  understand  the 
original  of  the  Bible ;  and  the  controversies  of  the 
learned  concerning  its  true  meaning  often  hide  the 
light  of  truth  from  their  eyes.  But  the  light  from 
these  passages  cannot  be  hid — it  is  obvious  to  every 
simple  and  unprejudiced  mind ;  and  the  words 
"  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,"  may  continue  to 
make,  as  a  Pedobaptist  writer  says  they  have  here- 
tofore made,  "  more  Baptists  than  any  other  passage 
in  the  Bible."  Through  this  commentary  of  the 
the  Apostle,  the  Spirit  of  God  enables  every  one  to 
judge  for  himself  in  this  matter.  While  the  learned 
are  contending  about  the  meaning  of  the  word  barp- 
tizo}  etc.,  let  the  unlearned  turn  to  these  Scriptural 
allusions  to  the  ordinance,  and  he  will  be  enabled 


112  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


clearly  and  distinctly  to  see  what  meaning  the  Holy 
Spirit  Himself  has  attached  to  the  act  of  baptism. 

TESTIMONIES. 

Dr.  A.  Thoixck  :  "  For  the  explanation  of  the 
figurative  description  of  the  baptismal  rite,  it  is 
necessary  to  call  the  attention  to  the  well-known 
circumstance,  that,  in  the  early  days  of  the  church, 
persons,  when  baptized,  were  first  plunged  below, 
and  then  raised  above  the  water,  to  which  practice, 
according  to  the  direction  of  the  Apostle,  the  early 

Christians  gave  a  symbolic  import In  the 

same  sense  Chrysostom,  on  the  third  chapter  of 
John,  observes  :  For  when  we  sink  our  heads  in 
the  water,  as  if  it  were  in  a  tomb,  the  old  man  is 
buried,  and  going  down  is  hidden  entire  and  at 
once."* 

Dr.  Matthies  :  "  Paul,  in  speaking  of  Rom.  vi. 
3,  &c,  as  we  have  seen,  has  in  his  mind  only  the 
rite  of  immersing  and  emerging,  and  in  the  Apos- 
tolic church,  in  order  that  a  communion  with  the 
death  of  Christ  might  be  signified,  the  whole  body 
of  the  person  to  be  baptized  was  immersed  in  the 
water  or  river  ;  and  then,  in  order  that  a  connec- 
tion with  the  resurrection  of  Christ  might  be  indi- 
cated, the  body  again  emerged,  or  was  raised  out 
of  the  water.  That  this  rite  has  been  changed  is 
indeed  to   be   lamented,  for  it  placed   before  the 

*  "Exposition  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  llouians."  Philadel- 
phia, 1844, 


PASSAGES    IN    THE    EPISTLES.  113 


tyeSt  most  ap>tly,  the  symbolical   meaning  of  bap- 

Rosexmuller  :  "  Immersion  in  the  ivater  of 
baptism  and  coming  forth  out  of  it,  was  a  symbol 
of  a  person's  renouncing  the  old  life,  and,  on  the 
contrary,  beginning  a  new  one.  The  learned  have 
rightly  reminded  us  that  on  account  of  this  emble- 
matical meaning  of  baptism,  the  rite  of  immersion 
ought  to  have  been  retained  in  the  Christian 
church."f 

Ch.  Starke  :  "  The  Apostle  has  reference  to 
the  then  prevailing  custom,  according  to  which  the 
candidate  was  entirely  immersed  in  water,  and 
after  he  had  been  left  under  it  a  little  while,  was 
again  taken  up  out  of  it.  Baptism,  consequently, 
does  not  only  contain  the  image  and  power  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  but  of  his  burial ;  so  that,  as  the 
Lord  by  his  burial  has  done  away  with  the  curse 
that  lay  upon  him,  we  also  might  be  partakers  of 
his  burial,  when  ice  are  laid  down  under  the  water, 
as  in  a  grave,  and  covered  with  iV\ 

Dr.  Whitby  :  u  It  being  so  expressly  declared 
here,  Rom.  vi.  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  that  we  are 
buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  by  being  buried 
under  water  ;  and  the  argument  to  oblige  us  to  a 
conformity  to  His  death  by  dying  to  sin,  being 
taken  hence  ;  and  this  immersion  being  religiously 

*  Expositio  Baptismi  Bibl.  Hist.  &,  Dogm.,  p.  116. 

f  Scbolia  in  Novum  Testam.,  vol.  3,  p.  454,  on  Rom.  vi.  4. 

j  Commentary  on  Rom.  vi.  4. 

10* 


114  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


observed  by  all  Christians  for  thirteen  centuries, 
and  approved  by  our  Church  (the  English  Episco- 
pal), and  the  change  of  it  into  sprinkling,  even 
without  any  allowance  from  the  Author  of  this  in- 
stitution, or  any  license  from  any  Council  of  the 
Church,  being  that  which  the  Romanist  still  urges 
to  justify  his  refusal  of  the  cup  to  the  laity  ;  it  were 
to  be  wished  that  this  custom  might  be  again  of 
general  use.'** 

Richard  Baxter  :  "  It  is  commonly  confessed 
by  us  to  Baptists  (as  our  Commentators  declare) 
that  in  the  Apostles'  time  the  baptized  were  dipped 
over  head  in  water;  and  that  this  signified  their 
profession  both  of  believing  the  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  and  of  their  own  present  renounc- 
ing the  world  and  flesh,  or  dying  to  sin  and  living 
to  Christ,  or  rising  again  to  newness  of  life,  or  be- 
ing buried  and  risen  again  with  Christ,  as  the 
Apostle  expoundeth  baptism  in  Col.  ii.  12,  and 
Rom.  vi.  4."f 

John  Wesley:  "Buried  with  Him— alluding 
to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immer- 
sion."X 

*  Commentary  on  the  New  Test.,  on  Rom.  vi.  4. 

f  Paraph,  on  New  Test.  Dissert. 

J  Commentary  on  the  N.  Test.,  on  Rom.  vi.  4. 


SECTION  XIV. 

PASSAGES     OF     THE     NEW     TESTAMENT     WHERE    THE 
WORD   BAPTIZO   OCCURS   IN   A   FIGURATIVE    SENSE. 

A. —  Christ  represents  His  sufferings  under  the 
Figure  of  a  Baptism. 

"But  Jesus  answered  and  said,  Ye  know  not 
what  ye  ask.  Are  ye  able  to  drink  of  the  cup  that 
I  shall  drink  of,  and  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism 
that  I  am  baptized  with  ?  They  say  unto  Him, 
"We  are  able.  And  He  said  unto  them,  Ye  shall 
drink  indeed  of  my  cup,  and  be  baptized  with  the 
baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with ;  but  to  sit  on  my 
right  hand,  and  on  my  left,  is  not  mine  to  give,  but 
it  shall  be  given  to  them  for  whom  it  is  prepared 
of  my  Father."  Matt.  xx.  22,  23. 

"  But  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with  ;  and 
how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished. n  Luke 
xii.  50. 

REMARKS. 

To  enter  into  great  sorrows  and  afflictions  is  often 
expressed  in  Scripture  under  the  figure  of  immer- 
sion in  water.     Thus  the  Prophetic  word  repre- 

(116) 


116  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

sents  Christ  as  immersed  in  deep  waters.  Ps.  lxix. 
2,  3.  Likewise  the  sufferings  of  the  church  are  re- 
presented under  the  same  figure.  Ps.  cxxiv.  4,  5. 
Now  we  ask,  Which  image  does  more  perfectly 
correspond  to  the  severity  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  the  sprinkling  of  a  few  drops  of  water  on 
the  face,  three  handsful  poured  on  the  head,  or 
immersion  into  deep  water?  Whosoever  knows 
the  history  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  will  concede 
that  he  was  entirely  immersed  into  his  deep  dis- 
tress and  severe  sufferings  as  a  man  that  sinks  "into 
deep  waters,  where  the  floods  overflow"  him.  Ps. 
lxix.  2. 

TESTIMONIES. 

Dr.  Doddridge  :  "  Are  you  able  to  drink  of  the 
bitter  cup  of  which  I  am  now  about  to  drink  so 
deep,  and  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism,  and 
plunged  into  that  sea  of  sufferings  with  which  I  am 
shortly  to  be  baptized,  and,  as  it  were,  over- 
whelmed for  a  time  ?"  "  Yerily  I  must  be  baptized 
with  the  most  terrible  baptism,  and  know  that  I 
soon  shall  be,  as  it  were,  bathed  in  blood  and 
plunged  into  the  most  overwhelming  distress."* 

Otto  Ton  Gerlach:  "  The  cup  signifies  a  great 
assigned  measure  of  sufferings,  and  alludes,  perhaps, 
especially  to  the  severe  sufferings  of  Christ  previous 
to  the  crucifixion  ;  baptism  is  still  more  :  a  com- 

*  "  Family  Expositor,"  on  the  paseage3  above. 


FIGURATIVE    SENSE    OF    BAPTIZO.         117 


plele  immersion  therein,  His  sanguinary  death." 
Ps.  xlii.  8;  lxix.  2;  cxxiv.  4,  5.* 

B. — Baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 

We  quote,  according  to  Dr.  George  Campbell's 
renowned  translation  of  the  Xew  Testament,  some 
of  the  passages  where  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  mentioned. 

"I,  indeed,  baptize  you  in  water,  that  ye  may 
reform  ;  but  he  who  cometh  after  me  is  mightier 
than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  carry.  He 
will  baptize  youi?i  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire."  Matt, 
iii.  11. 

"I,  indeed,  have  baptized  you  in  water ;  but  He 
will  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  Mark  i.  8. 

"  I,  indeed,  baptize  in  water ;  but  one  mightier 
than  I  cometh,  whose  shoe-latchet  I  am  not  worthy 
to  untie,  He  will  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  fire."  Luke  iii.  16. 

"For  my  part,  I  should  not  have  known  Him, 
had  not  He  who  sent  me  to  baptize  in  water  told 
me,  Upon  whomsoever  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit 
descending  and  remaining,  the  same  is  he  who  bap- 
tizeth  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  John  i.  33. 

REMARKS. 

It  has,  certainly,  not  escaped  the  attention  of  our 
readers,  that  in  all  these  passages,  according  to  the 
translation  of  Dr.  Campbell,  mention  is  made  of  a 

*  Exposition  of  the  Xew  Test.,  on  Matt.  xx.  22. 


118  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


baptism  "  in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  and  not  "  with  the 
Holy  Spirit,"  as  we  read  in  our  common  translation. 
This  translation  of  Dr.  Campbell  is  also,  without 
contradiction,  the  only  true  one. 

This  fact — that  in  the  original,  constantly  and 
uniformly,  mention  is  made  of  a  baptism  "  in,"  and 
not  u  with"  the  Holy  Spirit — is  strongly  opposed  to 
the  supposition  of  those  who,  from  the  so-called 
"Spirit-baptism,"  seek  an  occasion  to  defend  pour- 
ing instead  of  immersion  at  baptism.  For  this 
mode  of  speech  indicates  that  the  Apostles  and  the 
primitive  Christians  had  not  merely  a  very  little 
measure  of  the  Holy  Spirit  poured  upon  them,  but 
that  they  were  immersed  in  a  flood  of  the  power 
and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  just  as  we  immerse  an 
empty  vessel  in  the  water,  so  that  it  is  completely 
filled.  This,  and  nothing  else,  is  signified  by  the 
phrases  to  be  baptized  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  filled 
with  the  Spirit. 

To  this  the  objection  is  usually  made,  that,  when 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  Scripture  is  often  said  to  be 
poured  out,  and  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  such  a  powerful  and  extraordinary  manner,  took 
place  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  generally  during 
the  Apostolic  age,  this  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  must  be  the  same  as  baptism  in  the  Holy 
Spirit.  And  as  this  Spirit-baptism  took  place  by 
means  of  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
consequence  must  be  that  the  word  boptizo  is  used 
to  signify  pour. 


FIGURATIVE    SENSE    OF    BAPTIZO.        119 


To  this  objection  it  may  be  briefly  answered — 
That  the  Scriptures  often  speak  of  the  outpouring 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  indeed  true.  But  theDce  it 
does  in  nowise  follow  that  the  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit  and  baptism  in  the  Spirit  are  one  and  the  same 
thing.  The  Scriptures  nowhere  teach  it  ;  whence 
we  also  have  no  right  to  interchange  and  cun- 
found  these  two  distinct  ideas.  The  outpouring  of 
the  Spirit  is  one  act,  and  baptism  in  the  already 
outpoured  Spirit  is  another.  Thus,  at  the  out- 
pouring of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  the 
whole  house,  where  the  Apostles  were  sitting,  was 
filled  with  a  sound  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind — an 
emblem  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  John  iii.  8 — and  this 
sound  was  accompanied  with  cloven  tongues  like  as 
of  fire.  But  this  emblematic  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit,  which  could  both  be  seen  and  heard  (Acts 
ii.  33),  was  yet  only  a  preparation  for  baptism  in 
the  Holy  Spirit.  For  first  after  this  preparation 
baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit  followed,  which  is  sig- 
nified by  these  words:  ;<And  they  were  all  filled 
with  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  Apostles  were  now 
immersed  in  the  light  and  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

TESTIMONIES. 

Br.  II.  A.  W.  Meyer:    "The   Holy  Spirit,   so 

far  as  He,  as  real  Spirit,  filled  those  assemlkd 
Apostles,  must  be  discerned  from  the  symbol.  .  .  . 
After  these  outviard  appearances  followed  the  simul- 
taneous inward  filling  (they  were  all  filled)  of  all 


120  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


the  company  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  whence  the  im- 
mediate consequence  was,  They  began  to  speak  with 
other  tongues."* 

Dr.  A.  Xeander  :  "After  him  (John)  should  He 
come  who  would  be  so  highly  elevated  above  him, 
that  he  not  so  much  as  felt  worthy  to  show  him  the 
meanest  slave-service.  He  was  the  same  that  would 
baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  fire,  that  is, 
as  they  that  were  baptized  by  him  were  totally  im- 
mersed in  the  icater,  so  would  Messiah  totally  im- 
merse  the  souls  of  those  that  entered  into  fellowship 
with  Him,  in  the  Divine  Spirit  of  life  that  he  would 
impart  unto  them,  so  that  they  would  be  totally 
penetrated  therewith."f 

Bishop  Hopkins  :  "  They  who  are  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  are,  as  it  were,  plunged  into  the 
heavenly  flame,  whose  penetrating  power  devours 
all  their  dross  and  filthiness  from  below. "J 

Cyril,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem§  (a.  d.  386)  :  "As 
he  who  plunges  into  the  waters  and  is  baptized,  is 
encompassed  on  all  sides  by  the  waters,  so  were  the 
Apostles  also  baptized  completely  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.".  .  .  .  "  It  filled  the  house  ichere  they  were 
sitting;  for  the  house  became  the  vessel  of  the  spir- 
itual water ;  as  the  disciples  sat  within,  the  whole 

*•  Commentary  on  the  N.  Test.,  on  Acts  ii.  3,  4. 
T  The  Life  of  Christ. 
%  Works,  p.  519. 

#  Chrysostomi  Horn.  xi.  in  Cor.,  et  Cyrilli  Catechesis  xvii.  § 
14.     Pari?,  1720. 


FIGURATIVE    SENSE   OF   BAPTIZO.         121 


house  was  filled.  Thus  they  were  entirely  bap- 
tized— invested  soul  and  body  with  a  divine  and 
saving  garment. v* 

C. — Baptism  prefigured  by  the  wanderings  of  the 
Children  of  Israel  in  the  Bed  Sea  and  under 
the  Cloud. 

"  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should 
be  ignorant  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the 
cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea.  And  were 
all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea."  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2. 

REMARKS. 

He  who  does  not  know  the  important  fact  to 
which  the  Apostle  here  alludes,  would  do  well  to 
peruse  Exod.  xiv.,  where  it  is  narrated.  From  this 
chapter  we  see  that  the  Israelites  descended  into 
the  midst  of  the  Red  Sea  ;  that  the  water  divided, 
opening  a  passage  for  them,  raising  itself  on  both 
sides  as  a  wall,  so  that  they  could  walk  on  dry 
ground  through  the  sea.  Likewise  we  see  that  the 
cloud  which  followed  the  Israelites  concealed  them 
entirely  from  their  enemies  ;  that  it  was  bright,  and 
gave  light  to  the  former  while  it  was  darkness  to- 
ward the  latter.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  water 
actually  touched  the  Israelites  in  any  sense  what- 
ever ;  and  hence  the  word  "baptized"  must  be  used 

*  Chrysostouii  Hem.  xi.  in  Cor.,  et  Cyrilli  Catechesis  xvii.  g 
14.     Paris,  1720. 
11 


122  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


by  the  Apostle  in  a  figurative  sense.  Then  the 
only  question  that  arises  is,  whether  the  situation 
of  the  Israelites  "in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea" 
better  agrees  to  sprinkling  or  pouring  with  some 
little  water,  or  a  total  immersion  and  burial  in 
it.  The  following  renowned  Pedobaptists  will 
answer. 

TESTIMONIES. 

Whitstus  :  "  How  are  the  Israelites  baptized  in 
the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  seeing  they  were  neither 
immersed  in  the  sea  nor  wetted  by  the  cloud  ?  It  is 
to  be  considered  that  the  Apostle  here  uses  the  term 
1  baptism'  in  a  figurative  sense,  yet  there  is  some 
agreement  to  the  external  sign.  The  sea  is  water, 
and  a  cloud  differs  but  little  from  water.  The  cloud 
hung  over  their  head,  and  the  sea  surrounded  them 
on  each  side ;  and  so  does  the  water  in  regard  to 
those  that  are  baptized."* 

Gataker  :  "As  in  the  Christian  rite  the  candi- 
dates are  covered  with  water,  and,  as  it  were,  are 
buried  therein  ;  and  again,  when  they  come  out, 
rise  as  it  were  out  of  a  grave,  so  it  might  seem  as 
if  the  Israelites,  when  they  went  through  the  water 
of  the  sea,  which  was  higher  than  their  heads,  were 
covered  with  it  and  as  buried  therein ;  and  again, 
as  if  they  emerged  and  arose  when  they  ascended 
on  the  opposite  shore,  "f 

*  (Econ.  Feed.,  1.  4,  c.  10,  g  11. 
■f  Adversar.  Miscel..  cap.  iv. 


SECTION  XV. 

PASSAGES  WnERE  THE  WORD  BAPTIZO  OCCURS  IX  A 
LITERAL  IMPORT  WITHOUT  REFERENCE  TO  CHRIS- 
TIAN   BAPTISM. 

"  Then  came  together  nnto  Him  the  Pharisees 
and  certain  of  the  Scribes  who  came  from  Jerusa- 
lem. And  when  they  saw  some  of  His  disciples  eat 
bread  with  defiled  (that  is  to  say,  with  unwashen) 
hands,  they  found  fault.  For  the  Pharisees  and  all 
the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not, 
holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders.  And  when 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash  they 
eat  not.  And  many  other  things  there  be,  which 
they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  of  cups, 
and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  tables.  For 
laying  aside  the  commandment  of  God,  ye  hold  the 
tradition  of  men,  as  the  washing  of  cups  and 
pots,"  &c.  Mark  vii.  1,  4,  8. 

"  And  as  He  spake,  a  certain  Pharisee  besought 
Him  to  dine  with  him  ;  and  He  went  in  and  sat 
down  to  meat.  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he 
marvelled  that  He  had  not  first  washed  before 
dinner. "  Luke  xi.  37,  38. 

"Which  stood    only  in    meats   and    drinks,  and 

(123) 


124  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


divers  washings,  and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on 
them  until  the  lime  of  reformation."  Heb.  ix.  10. 


REMARKS. 

The  defenders  of  sprinkling  or  pouring  at — or 
rather,  instead  of — baptism,  have  urged  these  pas- 
sages to  prove  that  the  Lord  in  his  Commission 
has  not  commanded  immersion,  but  left  it  unde- 
cided in  what  manner  the  water  might  be  applied 
in  baptism.  They  have  supposed  that  the  words 
baptizo  and  bajjtismos,  which  here  occur,  do  not 
signify  immersion,  but  only  icashing  with  water. 

These  passages,  however,  duly  considered  accord- 
ing to  the  original,  are  so  far  from  being  in  oppo- 
sition to  our  doctrine  concerning  the  only  right 
mode,  that  they,  on  the  contrary,  strongly  confirm 
it.  For  if,  in  the  first  place,  we  examine  Mark  vii. 
1-4,  according  to  the  context,  we  find,  v.  3,  that 
the  Pharisees  usually  did  not  eat  unless  they  had 
washed  their  hands.  This  washing  of  the  hands  is 
in  the  Greek  signified  by  the  word  nipto,  which 
means  to  wash.  But  then  it  is  mentioned  in  v.  4, 
as  something  especial  and  singular  that,  when  they 
had  come  from  the  market — where  they  might  have 
touched  things  that  were  defiling  according  to  the 
law — they  also  did  not  eat,  unless  they  had  per- 
formed something  else  that  in  the  Greek  is  signified 
by  the  word  baptisontai,  and  in  our  version  is  ren- 
dered "they  wash,"  but  ought  rightly  to  have  been 


LITERAL    IMPORT    OF    BAPTIZO.  125 


rendered  "  they  liave  been  immersed. n  Here,  con- 
sequently, we  find  a  difference  of  circumstances  that 
occasioned  two  different  acts,  which  in  the  original 
are  denoted  by  two  different  words,  viz.,  nipto  and 
baptize.  Now  we  ask,  what  necessity  constrains  us 
here  to  discard  the  true  meaning  of  baplizo,  which  is 
to  immerse,  and  in  its  stead  use  the  same  word  wash 
for  the  two  different  Greek  words  descriptive  of  two 
different  ceremonies  ? 

On  this  question  we  observe  :  1.  It  has  always 
been  a  general  custom  in  the  East  for  men  to  bathe 
themselves  before  eating,  when  they  have  been  out 
on  their  business  and  affairs.  2.  It  was  expressly 
commanded  in  the  law  that  the  children  of  Israel 
should  bathe  in  water,  so  often  as  they  had  become 
unclean  in  the  sense  of  the  law.  See  Lev.  xv. 
and  Numb.  xix.  3.  The  text  tells  us  that  the 
Pharisees  did  more  than  the  law  required,  so  that 
they  even  when  they  had  been  at  home  would  not 
eat,  unless  they  had  washed  their  hands  ;  but  when 
they  had  been  out  to  market,  where  they  might 
have  become  polluted,  they  did  not  eat,  unless  they 
had  bathed,  or  been  immersed  in  water  (bapti- 
sontai).  4.  It  is  also  said,  that  the  Pharisees  did 
this  thing  to  keep  "the  tradition  of  the  elders." 
If  we,  therefore,  know  what  "the  tradition  of  tho 
elders"  required,  we  have  a  plain  exposition  of  our 
passage.  Of  this  we  are  informed  by  Maimonides, 
a  highly  celebrated  Jewish  Rabbi  of  the  12th  cen- 
tury, who  very  carefully  compiled  the  written  stai- 


126  CHRISTIAN'    BAPTISM. 


utes  of  the  Jews.  He  says,  "  Generally,  whenever 
in  the  law  washing  of  the  flesh  or  of  the  clothes  is 
mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  the  dipping 
of  the  whole  body  in  a  laver  ;  for  if  any  man  dips 
himself  all  over,  except  the  tip  of  his  little  finger, 
he  is  still  in  his  uncleanness."  ....  "  If  the  Pha- 
risees touched  but  the  garments  of  the  common 
people  they  were  defiled,  all  one  as  if  they  had 
touched  a  profluvious  person,  and  needed  immer- 
sion;  and  were  obliged  to  it;  hence,  when  they 
walked  the  street  they  walked  on  the  side  of  the 
way,  that  they  might  not  be  defiled  by  touching  the 
common  people."  ....  "In  a  laver,  which  holds 
forty  seahs  of  water,  every  defiled  man  dips  him- 
self."*— A  testimony  confirmed  both  by  the  Tal- 
mud— a  book  containing  the  doctrines  and  laws 
of  the  Jews — and  by  the  hereditary  custom  of  the 
Jews,  which  is  still  observed. 

Thus  all  things  most  clearly  support  the  position 
that  the  word  baptizo  here,  as  everywhere,  does  not 
mean  wash,  but  immerse. 

What  is  said  concerning  the  true  meaning  of 
baptizo  in  this  passage,  holds  good  also  with  refer- 
ence to  the  same  word  in  Luke  xi.  33.  Even  there 
has  baptizo  been  incorrectly  translated  by  wash, 
and  ought  to  be  rendered  by  immerse.     The  Lord 

*  Maimonides  in  Misn.  Chagign,  c.  2,  £  7.  Hilchoth  Mikva, 
c.  1,  \  2.  Hilch.  Mikvaot,  c.  9,  \  5.  Ililch.  Abot  Tiemaot,  c.  13, 
I  8.  Comp.  Dr.  Lishrfoot'?  H<>nr>.  ITv'br.  £  Talmud,  on  Matt. 
LLi.  6. 


LITERAL    IMPORT    OF    BAPTIZO.  127 


Jesus — as  the  former  part  of  the  chapter  shows — 
had  just  been  among  the  multitude;  whence  the 
Pharisees  marvelled  that  He  did  not,  according  to 
their  custom,  first   immerse  himself  (ebaptisthe), 

before  He  went  to  eat. 

Just  as  we  have  no  reason  to  translate  baptizo  by 
wash,  so  we  have  none  to  render  its  derivative  bap- 
tiimos — occurring  in  Mark  vii.  4,  8,  and  Heb.  ix. 
10 — by  "washing"  as  is  done  in  our  Bible.  For, 
1,  the  law  of  Moses,  Lev.  xi.  32,  required  that  all 
kinds  of  unclean  vessels  should  be  put  into  water, 
&c.  2.  The  above  named  Maimonides  says,  touch- 
ing the  custom  of  the  Pharisees,  "  They  dip  all  un- 
clean  vessels."  ....     "All  such  vessels   must  be 

dipped  before  they  were  used." "He  that 

buys  a  vessel  for  the  use  of  a  feast,  of  Gentiles, 
whether  molten  vessels  or  glass,  they  dip  them  in 
the  waters  of  the  laver,  and  after  that  may  eat  and 
drink  in  them."*  With  which  testimony  again 
both  the  Talmud  and  the  present  custom  of  the 
Jews  correspond. 

Many  have  thought  it  unlikely,  that  "  tables" 
mentioned  Mark  vii.  4,  could  have  been  immersed. 
But  this  is  just  as  plain  as  the  other.  Baptizo,  as 
we  have  seen,  means  immerse.  If  it  meant  spi^in- 
kle  or  pour,  it  might  sometimes  be  applied  to 
things  not  capable  of  immersion.  This,  however, 
is  never  the  case  ;   and   in  the  instance  before  us 

*  Hilch.  Mikvaot,  c.  9.     Hilch.  Maacolot  As.  c.  17. 


123  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


here  there  is  not  the  least  difficulty  in  assigning  the 
word  its  real  meaning.  The  tables  here  mentioned 
were  very  different  from  our  tables.  John,  in  his 
Christian  Archaeology,  ch.  ix.,  describes  them  thus: 
'•  The  table  in  the  East,  is  a  piece  of  round  leather, 
spread  upon  the  floor,  upon  which  is  placed  a  sort 
of  stool.  This  supports  nothing  but  a  platter.  The 
seat  was  the  floor,  spread  with  a  mattress,  carpet  or 
cushion,  upon  which  those  who  ate  sat  with  legs 
bent  and  crossed.  They  sat  in  a  circle  round  the 
piece  of  leather,  with  the  right  side  toward  the 
table,  so  that  one  might  be  said  to  lean  upon  the 
bosom  of  another."* 

These  tables,  together  with  the  mattresses  or 
cushions,  might  easily  be  defiled  in  the  sense  of  the 
law,  and  needed,  therefore,  as  often  as  this  hap- 
pened, according  to  the  traditions  of  the  Pharisees, 
to  undergo  a  ceremonial  cleansing  by  means  of  im- 
mersion. With  regard  to  such  a  cleansing,  Mai- 
monides  writes  again:  "Abed  that  is  wholly  de- 
filed, if  he  dip  it  part  by  part,  it  is  pure.  What 
shall  he  do  with  a  pillow  or  a  bolster  of  skin?  He 
must  dip  them  and  lift  thern  up  by  their  fringes. "f 

If,  however,  any  suppose  the  tables  here  men- 
tioned to  be  of  wood,  the  traditionary  law  is  equally 
express.     "Every  vessel  of  wood,"  says  Maimo- 

*  On  the  quality  of  these  tables,  see  further  Dr.  Lightfoot'3 
Harmony  of  the  Four  Evangelists,  on  John  ii.  Also  H.  A.  "W. 
Meyer's  Commentary,  on  Mark  vii.  4. 

f  Hilehoth  Cailim,  c.  1,  $  1  i. 


LITERAL    IMPORT    OF   BAPT1ZO.  129 


nides,  "which  is  made  for  the  use  of  man,  as  a 
table,  or  a  bed,  receives  defilement.  .  .  And  these 
were  washed  by  covering  them  in  water."* 


TESTIMONIES. 

Dr.  II.  A.  W.  Meyer  (on  Mark  vii.  4) :  "  There- 
by baptisontai  is  not  to  be  understood  of  washing 
the  hands,  but  of  immersion,  which  the  word,  both 
in  the  elassicf  Greek  and  in  the  New  Testament, 
always  signifies,  that  is,  here  according  to  the  con- 
text, take  a  bath.  Likewise  also  in  Luke  xi.  38. 
Returned  from  market,  where  they  among  the 
throng  might  have  had  defiling  contacts,  they  eat 
not,  unless  they  first  have  bathed.  The  representa- 
tion is  climacteric.  Before  eating  they  always 
observe  the  washing  of  the  hands,  but  the  bathing 
when  they  come  from  market,  and  wish  to  eat.n 

(On  Luke  xi.  38)  "  Jesus  had  just  come 

from  the  crowd,  yea,  He  had  just  cast  out  a  devil, 
i*.  14.  Therefore  they  expected  that  He  before 
breakfast  would  first  cleanse  himself  by  immersion, 

that  is,  by  a  bath." (On  the  word   bap- 

tismous  in  Mark  vii.  4,  8)  "  Baptismous  is  likewise 
to  be  understood  of  rinsing  by  immersion. ."J 

Where   our  version  in  Heb.  ix.  10,  has  "divers 

*  Hilcb.  Cailim.  c.  4.     Mism.  Mikvaot,  o.  9. 
f  That  is,  the  Greek   as  it  is  found  in  distinguished  profane 
authors  among  the  old  Greeks. 

J  Meyer's  Cuuimentary  on  the  passages  above. 


130  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


washings,"  Luther  has  correctly  translated  the  same 
words  of  the  original  by  "manifold  immersions" 
(mancherley  taufen),  which  were  the  manifold  im- 
mersions of  persons,  clothes,  and  utensils,  required 
by  the  law. 

That  baptizo  in  the  passages  above  signifies  im- 
merse, and  baptismos,  immersion,  is  furthermore 
testified  by  a  great  number  of  Pedobaptist  critics, 
of  whom  may  be  quoted  :  Beza,  Grotius,  Buxtorf, 
Lightfoot,  Scaliger,  Rosen ni filler,  Kuinoel,  Jahn, 
Tatablus,  Schleusner,  Scapula,  Stockius,  Olshauseu, 
G.  Campbell,  McKnight,  Spencer,  Hammond,  Wet- 
stein,  Heumann,  Altingius,  Maldonatus,  Lange 


'? 


SECTION  XVI. 

PASSAGES    WHERE     BAPTISM    IS    OCCASIONALLY 
MENTIONED. 

"Ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus.  For  as  many  of  you  as  haye  been 
baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ." — Gal.  iii. 
26,  27. 

REMARKS. 

From  the  context,  it  is  plain  that  the  Apostle 
means  to  say  that  the  Christians  of  Galatia  were 
no  longer  minors  under  the  schoolmaster  (see  v.  24, 
and  eh.  iv.  1-3).  but  had  now  by  faith  on  Christ 
become  free  sons  of  full  age  ;  and  this  he  proves  by 
the  fact  that  they  had  in  their  baptism  openly  put 
on  Christ.  Because  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and 
they  had  put  on  Him  by  faith  and  baptism  ;  they 
also  must  have  become  what  He  is — God's  free 
sons  of  full  age. 

Here  it  may  be  asked,  What  is  it  to  put  on 
Christ  in  baptism  ?  We  believe  that  this  question 
cannot  be  more  clearly  answered,  than  by  pointing 
to  the  analogy  of  a  public  and  solemn  marriage. 
There  may  be  an  inward  union  of  heart  between  a 


132  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


man  and  a  woman  before  the  marriage  :  they  may 
believe  on  each  other,  love  each  other,  and  consider 
each  other  as  united  in  heart ;  but  they  are  not  con- 
sidered as  fully  united  until  they,  through  a  public 
marriage,  have  solemnly  declared  before  God  and 
the  world,  that  they  wish  to  belong  to  each  other 
for  life,  and  thus,  as  it  were,  publicly  put  on  each 
other.  Such,  too,  is  the  relation  of  man  to  Christ. 
He  may  believe  on  Christ,  love  Him,  and  consider 
himself  as  united  with  Him ;  but  until  he  has  by 
baptism,  before  God  and  the  world,  publicly  and 
solemnly  professed  himself  willing  in  life  and  death 
to  belong  to  Him,  and  thus  publicly  entered  into 
covenant  with  Him,  he  cannot  be  said  to  have  fully, 
and  after  God's  own  appointment,  become  united 
with  Christ.  The  true  Christian  baptism  may  thus 
be  properly  considered  as  forming  a  marriage  rela- 
tion between  Christ  and  His  people.  In  it  we  receive 
from  Christ  a  direct  assurance  and  pledge  of  His  eter- 
nal fellowship  with  ourselves  ;  and  in  return  we  con- 
fess solemnly  our  faith  on  Him,  our  union  with  Him, 
our  firm  purpose  entirely  to  devote  ourselves  to  Him 
and  His  cause,  and  faithfully  to  follow  Him  until 
death.  Thus  it  is  that  we  rightly  put  on  Christ  by 
baptism,  and  may  thenceforth  fully  adopt  this  joy- 
ful hymn  of  the  Prophet :  "I  will  greatly  rejoice  in 
the  Lord,  my  soul  shall  be  joyful  in  my  God  ;  for 
He  hath  clothed  me  with  the  garments  of  salvation, 
He  hath  covered  me  with  the  robe  of  righteousness 
as  a  bridegroom  decketh  himself  with   ornaments, 


OCCASIONAL    PASSAGES.  133 


and  as  a  bride  adorneth  herself  with  her  jewels." 
Isa.  Ixi.  10.  On  the  contrary,  though  we  by  no 
means  wish  to  deny  the  salvation  of  anbaptized  be- 
lievers, yet  it  is  evident,  that  he  who  is  living  in 
the  neglect  of  baptism  is  living  in  the  neglect  of  the 
duty  publicly  to  put  on  Christ,  in  the  appointed 
way,  and  is  thereby  depriving  himself  of  the  blessing 
awarded  to  those  who  faithfully  keep  the  command- 
ments of  God.   Ps.  xix.  11. 

From  this  passage  we  find  who  were  baptized  in 
the  churches  of  Galatia  :  they  were  only  such  as 
could  understand,  that  when  they  had  been  ''bap- 
tized into  Christ/'  they  had  "  put  on  Christ."  The 
words  of  the  Apostle  imply  that  among  all  the 
baptized  in  all  the  churches  of  Galatia,  there  was 
not  one  that  could  not  understand  that  he  had 
put  on  Christ  by  baptism.  For  he  appeals  to  the 
personal  experience  of  every  one,  and  says:  "Ye 
are  all  the  sons  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus. 
For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ  have  put  on  Christ.'**  Here  all  are  deemed 
able  to  infer  that  they  had  put  on  Christ  by  bap- 
tism, and  had  thus  become  one  with   Him.     It  is 

*  In  Rom.  vi.  3,  the  baptized  ore  likewise  presupposed  to  be 
able  to  understand  that  when  they  had  been  "baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ."  they  "were  baptized  into  His  death."  "Know  ye 
not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  His  death."  How  could  new-born  children  know 
and  understand  such  things?  and  bow  could  they  be  ranged 
among  the  "  us"  and  "tee"  of  whom  the  Apostle  speaks  in  this 
and  the  following  verses  ? 


134:  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


evident  that,  if  new-born  children  had  been  bap- 
tized in  the  churches  of  Galatia,  Paul  could  not 
have  used  this  language.  Indeed,  who  could  rightly 
apply  this  language  to  any  Pedobaptist  church  in 
our  time  ?  Were  it  true  that  new-born  children 
are  born  again  through  baptism,  yet  one  could  not 
address  them  as  such  as  could  understand  that  they 
had  put  on  Christ  by  baptism.  It  could  only,  at 
most,  be  said  of  them,  that  they  were  invested  in 
Christ  by  baptism.  But  this  is  not  what  Christ 
requires  from  us.  He  requires  our  own  personal 
and  conscious  act ;  He  wishes  that  we  ourselves 
put  Him  on  by  baptism.  The  question  is :  Has 
Christ  commanded  you  personally  to  be  baptized, 
and  yourselves  publicly  to  put  Him  on  by  baptism  ? 
Why  have  you  not  done  it  ?  Has  your  mother,  or 
father,  or  have  some  sponsors  done  it  for  you  ? 
Can  that  be  valid  before  God  as  your  act  ?  My 
friend,  neglect  no  longer  to  obey  our  Lord's  holy 
requirement  of  you — yourself.  Are  you  a  minister 
of  the  Gospel  ?  Honor  our  Lord's  command,  and 
He  will  honor  you  ! 

TESTIMONIES. 

Calvin  :  "  He  uses  the  similitude  of  a  robe  when 
he  says  that  the  Galatians  had  put  on  Christ ;  but 
he  means  that  they  were  so  grafted  into  Christ  that 
before  God  they  bore  the  name  and  person  of 
Christ,  and  were  more  reckoned  in  Him  than  in 
themselves."* 

*  Gonimentary  on  Gal.  iii.  2T. 


OCCASIONAL    PASSAGES.  135 


Locke  :  "  God  now  looking  on  them,  there  ap- 
pears  nothing  but  Christ.  They  are,  as  it  were, 
covered  all  over  with  Ilim,  as  a  man  is  with  the 
clothes  that  he  has  put  on  ;  and  hence  in  the  next 
verse  it  is  said,  they  are  alt  one  in  Christ  Jesus,  as 
if  there  were  but  that  one  person.''* 

Scott:  "Indeed,  the  connection  of  the  27th 
verse  with  that  which  precedes,  shows  that  the 
faith  in  Christ  which  icas  publicly  professed  in 
baptism,  and  not  the  mere  outward  administration — 
whether  the  baptized  person  had  faith  or  not — was 
specially  intended.  rf 

"  One  Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism." — Eph. 
iv.  5. 

REMARKS. 

The  Apostle  asserts  that  there  are  not  two  or 
more  Christian  Baptisms,  but  one  only.  Under 
the  Old  Testament  there  were  "divers  immersions" 
of  persons,  clothes,  and  utensils,  as  we  have  seen  ;| 
but  in  the  New  Dispensation  there  is  but  one 
authorized  Christian  Baptism,  viz.,  the  immersion 
in  water  of  a  professed  believer  into  tile  name  of 
the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  And 
deviation  from  this  Baptism,  either  with  respect  to 
the  subject,  design,  or  mode,  reduces  it  to  a  nullity. 
Now  let  us  ask,  Is  this  one  Christian  Baptism  con- 

*  Paraphrase  and  Notes  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  on   QaL 
iii.  27. 

f  Commentay.  t'»  loc.  ~  See  page  12.>. 


136  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


sistent  with  Infant  Baptism  ?  In  the  one  case  bap- 
tism is  conscientiously  sought  by  the  candidate  as 
the  appointed  symbol  of  his  fellowship  with  his 
Saviour — in  the  other  case,  the  subject  neither 
knows  nor  cares  any  thing  about  it ;  in  the  one  the 
subject  makes  a  solemn  renunciation  of  sin  and 
an  avowal  of  faith  in  Christ — in  the  other  he 
neither  avows  nor  disavows  any  thing ;  in  the  one 
the  subject  is  active,  "  going  down  into  the  water'1 — 
in  the  other  passive,  carried  to  the  font  or  the  bowl ; 
in  the  one  the  believer  comes  "up  out  of  the  water," 
and  "  goes  on  his  way  rejoicing" — in  the  other  the 
child  is  borne  away,  utterly  unconscious  of  what 
has  been  done  ?  Are  these  different  rites  one  and 
the  same  ?  Can  both  be  practiced  under  the  same 
law  ?  Are  they  properly  called  one  Faith,  one  Bap- 
tism ?*  Let  it  be  remembered  that  all  our  Pedo- 
baptist  friends  admit  immersion  on  a  credible  pro- 
fession of  faith  to  be  Christian  Baptism.  Can  any 
man,  contemplating  this  point  with  candor,  bring 
himself  to  believe  that  sprinkling  or  pouring  water 
on  an  unconscious  babe  is  one  and  the  same  bap- 
tism with  the  former. 

"By  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  bond  or 
free."  1  Cor.  xii.  13. 

*  Those  who  have  received  the  on<?  baptism  are  here  consid- 
ered as  having  the  one  faith.     But  what  faith  have  infante? 


OCCASIONAL   PASSAGES.  137 


"Else  what  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  for 
the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  why  are  they 
then  baptized  for  the  dead  f"  xv.  29. 

REMARKS. 

In  the  former  of  these  passages  it  is  said  that  all 
Christians  have  been  baptized  into  one  body,  that 
is,  to  make  one  body,  or  one  Christian  church. 
Men  may  belong  to  whatsoever  nation  or  rank  of 
society,  they  maybe  "Jews  or  Greeks,  bond  or 
free  ;"  but  when  they  have  been  baptized,  they  are 
thereby  made  members  of  this  one  body  or  church, 
whose  head  is  Christ.  Eph.  i.  22,  23.  As  they  are 
internally  united  by  faith,  they  are  also,  by  baptism, 
externally  united  to  make  that  one  body.  Xone  is 
here  supposed  to  be  baptized  upon  the  expectation, 
or  probability,  or  possibility  that  he  may  yet  belong 
to  that  body,  but  all  are  said  to  be  baptized  into 
the  body,  and  consequently  as  believing  disciples 
of  Christ. 

As  to  1  Cor.  xv.  29,  it  may  be  observed,  1,  That 
it  has  been,  and  is  still  interpreted  by  the  Commen- 
tators in  many  different  ways.  2.  The  interpreta- 
tion of  it  adopted  by  some,  as  if  it  should^  refer  to 
an  ancient  custom  to  baptize  over  the  graves  of  the 
dead,  is  generally  rejected  among  the  learned,  both 
because  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  obvious  gram- 
matical meaning  of  the  passage,  and  because  we 
cannot,  in  the  Apostolic  age,  trace  the  custom  of 
baptizing  over  the  sepulchres  of  the  dead.  3.  To 
12* 


138  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


us  that  interpretation  seems  most  natural  according 
to  which  the  expression  "baptized  for  the  dead"  is 
to  be  regarded  as  elliptical,  and  meaning  "  baptized 
for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead."  This  form  of  ex- 
pression is  not  inconsistent  with  the  elliptical  lan- 
guage often  used  by  Paul.  The  Greek  preposition 
"hyper"  will  also  bear  a  translation  consistent 
with  this  view,  and  may  here  properly  be  rendered 
"on  account  of,"  or  "with  reference  to."  The 
meaning  then  is  :  "Else  what  would  they  be  doing 
who  are  baptized  ivith  reference  to  the  dead — that 
is  the  dead  corpses,  in  hope  of  their  resurrection — ■ 
if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  Why  are  they  then 
baptized  with  reference  to  the  dead  ?"  This  inter- 
pretation is  adopted  by  the  ancient  Greek  fathers, 
Chrysostom  and  Theophylact,  who  may  be  supposed 
to  understand  their  own  language.  The  former 
says,  in  explaining  the  passage  :  "Paul  said,  unless 
there  is  a  resurrection,  why  art  thou  baptized  for 
corpses,  that  is,  for  mere  bodies  ?  For  to  this  end 
art  thou  baptized,  for  the  resurrection  of  thy  dead." 
The  latter  :  "  Why  are  men  baptized  at  all  in  be- 
half of  the  resurrection — that  is  in  expectation  of 
resurrection — if  the  dead  rise  not  ?"*  This  view  is 
also  adopted  by  Robinson,  in  his  Lexicon  on  the 
New  Testament.  He  says  :  "  Baptized  on  account 
of  the  dead,  that  is,  Why  baptized  into  a  belief  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  if  in  fact  the  dead 
rise  not."     4.   So   much  is  evident  that  the  bap- 

*  See   "  Christian  Review."     January  1850. 


OCCASIONAL    PASSAGES.  139 


tized  persons  in  this  place  are  supposed  by  bap- 
tism to  have  confessed  their  faith  on  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead.  This  passage,  consequently, 
does  not  contain  any  allusion  to  the  baptism  of  new- 
born children,  who  are  not  able  to  confess  such  a 
faith. 

11  Therefore  leaving  the  principles  of  the  doc- 
trines of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection  ;  not 
laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead 
works,  and  of  faith  toward  God,  of  the  doctrine 
of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment." 
Heb.  vi.  1,  2. 

REMARK. 

On  this  passage  it  may  be  sufficient  only  to  quote 
the  following  remark  of  De  Wette  :  "  Upon  these 
two  things"  (viz.,  repentance  and  faith)  "follow,  in 
the  gospel  order  of  salvation,  baptism,  wherewith 
instruction  was  connected." 

"Who  in  old  times  did  not  believe,  when  God 
once  waited  and  had  patience  in  the  time  of  Noah, 
when  they  were  preparing  the  ark,  in  which  few, 
that  is  eight  souls,  were  saved  through  the  water ; 
which  now  also  saves  us  in  baptism,  which  is  signi- 
fied by  the  former  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth 
of  the  flesh,  but  the  covenant  of  a  good  conscience 
with  God)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  1 
Pet.  iii.  20,  21.  (According  to  the  translation  of 
Luther.) 


140  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


REMARKS. 

The  salvation  here  ascribed  to  baptism  is  repre- 
sented as  corresponding  to  the  salvation  of  Noah 
in  the  ark  "  through  the  water."  In  both  cases  the 
act  of  obedience  saved  men  only  as  the  appointed 
expression  of  their  saving  faith.  As  the  dead  in 
his  coffin  lies  buried  in  the  earth,  even  so  were  Noah 
and  his  house  as  buried  in  the  ark,  which  on  all 
sides  was  surrounded  by  the  waters  of  the  deluge. 
And  as  a  dead  person  arises  from  his  sepulchre,  so 
also  Noah  and  his  house  emerged  from  the  water, 
as  if  they  had  arisen  out  of  the  grave,  and  were 
thus  "saved  through  the  water,"  so  that  they  went 
happily  through  and  out  of  it.  Likewise  a  true 
believer  in  the  "resurrection  of  Christ"  is  by  his 
appointment  buried  in  water  by  immersion,  and 
arises  again,  as  from  a  grave,  out  of  the  water  of 
emersion  ;  and  is  thus,  like  Noah,  saved  through 
the  water,  so  that  he  comes  forth  to  live  a  new  life 
to  the  glory  of  God. 

When  Peter  says  that  "  baptism  saves  us,"  he 
adds,  to  prevent  misunderstanding,  that  not  "  the 
washing  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh" — or  the  mere 
outward  act  of  baptism — but  "the  covenant  of  a 
good  conscience  with  God,"  is  that  which  saves  in 
baptism;  or  rather,  "the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ"  which  faith  apprehends  and  receives,  is  that 
which  both  gives  us  a  good  conscience  and  saves 
us.     Baptism  saves  in  the  same  way  that  it  washes 


OCCASIONAL    PASSAGES. 


141 


away  sin  (Acts  xxii.   16),  or  as  confession  saves. 
.Rom.  x.  9,  10.     (See  pp.  87,  88.) 

All  who  are  baptized  are  here  said  to  enter  into 
a  "  covenant  of  a  good  conscience  with  God."  But 
as  the  conscience  of  new-born  children  has  nothing 
to  do  with  their  baptism,  they  have  neither  a  good 
nor  evil  conscience,  as  they  neither  have  done  any 
good  nor  evil,  Rom.  ix.  11 ;  so,  consequently,  this 
passage  has  no  reference  to  the  baptism  of  new- 
born children. 


mm 


SECTION   XVII. 

PASSAGES   ERRONEOUSLY   INTERPRETED  IN  FAVOR   OP 
INFANT    BAPTISM. 

A. — Christ  blessing  the  children. 
"And  they  brought  young  children  to  Jesus, 
that  he  should  touch  them  ;  and  his  disciples  re- 
buked those  that  brought  them.  But  when  Jesus 
saw  it,  he  was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them, 
Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  for- 
bid them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  not  receive 
the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not 
enter  therein.  And  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms, 
put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them."  Mark 
x.  13-16. 

REMARKS. 

In  this  passage,  compared  with  Matt.  xix.  13- 
15,  and  Luke  xviii.  15-17,  Pedobaptists  find  one 
of  their  strongest  arguments  in  support  of  infant 
baptism.  "When,"  say  they,  "we  see  the  piety  of 
the  Jews  who  brought  little  children  to  Christ,  that 
he  might  bless  them  ;  when  we  hear  him  rebuking 
his  disciples  for  forbidding  the  children  to  come  to 
him  ;  when  we  hear  his  command,  '  Suffer  little 
(142) 


ERRONEOUS    INTERPRETATIONS. 


children  to  come  to  me  ;'  when  we  consider  the 
reason  he  gives  :  'For  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God;'  and  when  we  read  that  'He  took  them  up 
in  his  arras,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed 
them' — who  would  forbid  the  little  ones  to  come  to 
Christ  in  baptism,  which  is  the  ordinary  means 
whereby  man  is  made  a  partaker  of  Christ,  is  born 
again,  and  becomes  a  child  of  God  ?" 

On  this  we  answer :  If,  to  the  relation  of  the 
gracious  condescension  of  our  Saviour  to  take  the 
children  up  in  his  arms,  it  had  been  added,  "And 
He  baptized  them,"  instead  of  the  words,  "  and 
blessed  them,"  then  this  passage  might  with  pro- 
priety be  adduced  in  defense  of  infant  baptism. 
But  as  the  words  now  read,  this  passage  contains 
no  more  evidence  for  infant  baptism  than  for  infant 
communion,  or  infant  circumcision. 

It  is  certain  that  the  children  here  mentioned 
were  not  baptized.  For  we  are  clearly  informed 
that  "Jesus  himself  baptized  not,"  John  iv.  2; 
neither  does  he  command  to  bring  the  children  to 
the  Apostles  that  they  might  baptize  them,  but  to 
himself,  that  he  might  put  his  hands  on  them  and 
bless  them.*     That  Jesus  before  this  had  not  coin- 

*  On  this,  Rev.  I.  S.  C.  F.  Trey,  a  converted  Jew,  and  in  his 
latter  years  a  Baptist,  writes  :  "  This  was  done,  not  in  obedience 
to  a  religious  institution,  hut  in  conformity  with  the  usual  cus- 
tom of  the  Jews  ;  for,  in  imitation  of  Joseph  having  brought  his 
two  sons  to  Jacob  to  bless  them  (Gen.  xlviii.),  so,  whenever  a 
person  of  renown  for  learning,  piety,  Ac,  arrives  in  a  place  even 


144  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM, 


manded  to  baptize  children,  is  also  evident ;  for 
the  disciples  had  baptized  main*.  John  iii.  22,  26  ; 
iv.  1.  Now,  if  they  had  been  accustomed  to  see 
children  brought  to  Jesus,  and  ever,  themselves,  had 
been  commanded  to  baptize  them,  they  certainly 
would  never  have  rebuked  and  turned  away  those 
who  brought  them.  This,  consequently,  is  a  clear 
evidence  that  neither  our  Saviour  nor  his  Apostles 
on  this  occasion  had  any  idea  of  infant  baptism, 
and  hence  it  is  as  evident  that  he  never  intended  to 
have  it  introduced  into  his  church.  For  here  we 
see  children  brought  to  Jesus  that  he  might  bless 
them,  or  at  least  "pray"  over  them.  Matt.  xix.  13. 
Now  let  us  ask  :  If  baptism  would  have  brought 
these  children  into  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  into 
Christ's  church,  or  secured  to  them  any  spiritual 
benefit,  would  our  Saviour  have  concealed  that  fact 
from  those  that  brought  the  children,  or  from  his 
disciples  ?  Would  he  "  take  them  in  his  arms  and 
bless  them,"  and  give  them  back  without  baptism 
and  without  a  word  upon  that  ordinauce  ?  Was 
it  ever  known  that  any  spiritual  benefit  was  sought 
from  him,  and  he  bestowed  it  not  ?  Here  the  spir- 
itual good  of  these  children  was  sought  at  his  hands, 
and  if  baptism  was  the  seal,  the  key,  and  the  door 
to  all  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  covenant  of 

at  the  present  day,  parents  and  guardians  bring  their  children 
to  him  to  receive  a  blessing  from  his  band.  This  argument, 
therefore,  has  long  been  abandoned  by  the  most  learned  and 
pious  of  our  opponents." 


ERRONEOUS  INTERPRETATIONS.     145 


grace — as  Pedobaptists  often  say — would  our  Sav- 
iour refuse  it,  or  send  them  away  without  it,  especi- 
ally as  he  was  now  going  about  in  order  to  "  make 
disciples  and  baptize?"  John  iv.  1.  This  is  im- 
possible ;  and  therefore  we  also  infer  that  infant 
baptism  is  no  part  of  the  will  of  Christ,  but  adverse 
to  it — that  it  can  communicate  no  good,  and  ought 
not  to  be  observed. 

Xothing,  therefore,  can  be  more  perverse  than  to 
appeal  to  these  children,  to  whom  the  Lord  would 
not  administer  baptism,  as  an  evidence  in  favor  of 
infant  baptism.  To  baptize  such  as  Jesus  would 
not  baptize,  and  then  refer  to  his  example  in  justi- 
fication of  our  conduct,  is  nothing  else  but  a  trifling 
with  his  holy  institutions,  and  is  directly  opposed 
to  his  will  as  expressed  both  by  word  and  deed. 

In  vain  is  the  objection,  that  our  Saviour  omitted 
to  baptize  these  children,  because  they  were  already 
circumcised,  and  because  Christian  baptism  was 
not  as  yet  instituted.  For  as  to  the  former,  all 
Jewish  men  who  were  converted  to  Christianity,  on 
the  same  principle,  ought  not  to  be  baptized.  And 
as  to  the  latter,  we  have  already  proved,  that  the 
baptism  administered  in  the  name  of  Christ  before 
the  day  of  Pentecost  was  identical  with  that  admin- 
istered  thenceforth.  But  even  could  it  be  proved 
that  the  baptism  now  administered  by  the  disciples 
of  Christ,  could  not  be  valid  as  a  Christian  baptism, 
yet  by  that  means  nothing  would  be  gained.  For 
how  could  infants  have  any  more  right  to  Christian 
13 


146  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


baptism  than  to  the  baptism  of  John  ?  Was  it  be- 
cause Christian  baptism  requires  neither  repentance 
nor  faith,  as  the  former  did  ?  Or  are  infants  in 
Scripture  mentioned  as  subjects  of  the  one  more 
than  of  the  other  ? 

As  to  the  words  of  our  Saviour,  "  Suffer  little 
children  to  come  to  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  they  have  been 
explained  in  many  different  ways.  One  party  of 
Pedobaptists  have  so  interpreted  the  words,  as  if 
our  Saviour  meant  to  say,  "  Suffer  little  children  to 
come  to  me  in  baptism ;  for  to  such  as  are  brought 
to  me  in  baptism  belongs  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
But  this  interpretation  is  at  once  to  be  rejected  as 
an  arbitrary  and  open  perversion  of  the  words  of 
the  Lord.  Here  is  nothing  either  expressed  or  im- 
plied with  respect  to  the  baptism  or  the  circumcision 
of  the  infants  brought  to  Jesus  ;  nor  does  what  our 
Lord  says  apply  to  those  children  more  than  any  other 
children.  It  is  not  "Suffer  these  little  baptized  or 
circumcised  children  to  come  to  me,"  nor,  "Suffer 
children  of  Christian  parents  to  come  to  me  in  bap- 
tism;" but  suffer  little  children — that  is,  any  little 
children — to  come  to  me.  Thus  the  saving  arms  of 
Jesus  are  outstretched  to  all  little  children,  either 
circumcised  or  uncircumcised,  either  baptized  or 
unbaptized,  born  of  Christian  parents  or  heathen. 

To  the  objection  often  made,  that  little  children 
now,  while  Christ  is  not  visibly  on  earth,  cannot  be 
brought  to  him  but  through  baptism,  we  answer  in 


ERRONEOUS    INTERPRETATIONS.  147 


the  words  of  Luther  :  "  With  ourjorayerare  brought 
to  Christ  and  come  to  him  those  little  children  whom 
we  cannot*  baptize  :  .  .  .  and  Christ  also  receives 
them,  according  to  His  promise,  Ml  thai  ye  ask 
shall  be  Yea.     Likewise,  Suffer  little  children  to 

come  to  me Christ  receives  them,  though 

they  cannotf  come  to  the  water  baptism  of  Christ ; 
for  He  baptizes  them  with  His  Holy  Spirit,  just  as 
He  baptized  those  children  without  water  baptism 
whom  he  received,  pressed  to  His  heart,  blessed  and 
said  :  To  such  belongs  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  .  . 
It  is  not  always  necessary  to  bring  men  to  Christ 
on  the  arms  and  shoulders,  as  the  children  there 
were  brought,  whereof  the  Evangelists  write.  Xo, 
we  can  also,  in  case  of  necessity,  bring  men,  great 
or  small,  to  Christ  with  our  prayer.  "J 

Others  have  interpreted  the  words,  "  Of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  God,"  as  if  they  meant,  "  To  such 
teachable  and  humble  souls  as  the  little  children, 
belongs  the  kingdom  of  God  ;"  when,  at  the  same 
time,  they  have  maintained  that  little  children 
themselves,  as  unregenerate  and  defiled  by  original 
sin,  are  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and 
further,  that  regenerated  souls,  that  in  some  respects 
resemble  them,  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  As 
to  ourselves,  we  cannot  agree  with  this  interpreta- 
tion, because  it  is  implied  in  the  act  of  Jesus,  that 
He  must  needs  have  declared  himself  with  regard 

*  Or  "ought  not." 
f  Or  "  ought  not." 
%  Lather's  Workr,  edited  by  "Wekh,  tome  2J,  p.  2C4-. 


143  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


to  the  children  themselves,  as  .well  as  respecting 
such  as  in  some  points  resemble  them. 

Again,  others  understand  the  words  of  Christ  so, 
that  He  thereby  acknowledges,  not  only  adults  re- 
sembling infants,  but  infants  themselves  as  par- 
takers of  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  interpretation 
seems  to  us  most  agreeable  to  the  context.  We 
are  also  in  nowise  disturbed  by  such  an  interpreta- 
tion, as  if  it  could  afford  a  support  for  infant  bap- 
tism. For  if  Pedobaptists  would  thus  argue,  "  To 
little  children  belongs  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  there- 
fore they  are  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  the 
kingdom,  that  is,  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ,  con- 
sequently even  to  baptism,"  they  evidently  would 
prove  too  much,  and  thereby  refute  themselves. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  our  text  does  not  distinguish 
the  infants  of  believers  from  those  of  infidels.  If 
we,  therefore,  wrere  entitled,  on  this  principle,  to 
baptize  the  infants  of  believers,  we  also  wrere  just  as 
well  entitled  to  baptize  the  infants  of  Jews,  Turks, 
and  heathen.  But  now,  all  denominations,  except- 
ing the  Catholics,  reject  the  baptism  of  such  children. 
Again,  on  the  same  principle,  Pedobaptists  ought 
also  to  give  the  Lord's  Supper  to  new-born  baptized 
children,  as  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are 
most  closely  and  inseparably  connected.  But  now 
this  custom  also  is  rejected  by  all  Protestant  denom- 
inations, yea,  even  by  the  Romanists  themselves. 
But  let  us  ask  the  Pedobaptists,  By  what  authority 
do  you  exclude  infants  from   the  Lord's  Supper, 


EBRONEOUS   INTERPRETATIONS.  149 


while  the  kingdom  of  God  and  all  its  privileges  be- 
long to  them,  and  they  besides  are  baptized,  and — 
as  many  of  you  contend — regenerated  in  baptism  ? 
Does  not  the  spiritual  life  that,  according  to  your 
doctrine,  is  born  in  baptism,  also  need  to  be  nour- 
ished by  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  If  it  be  objected 
that  a  discernment  of  the  Lord's  body  and  self- 
examination  are  required  to  precede  the  participa- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper  (1  Cor.  xi.  28,  29),  we 
answer  :  It  is  just  as  necessary  that  the  belief  in  the 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  a 
hearty  dependence  on  His  grace,  the  covenant  of  a 
good  conscience  with  God,  and  a  confession  of  faith 
in  His  name  (Rom.  vi.  3,  4;  1  Pet.  iii.  21  ;  Matt 
xxviii.  19,  20  ;  Acts  viii.  37),  should  in  all  cases 
precede  Christian  baptism. 

By  the  "  kingdom  of  God"  in  this  place,  is  not 
meant  the  visible  church  of  Christ,*  but  His  real 

*  "This  interpretation  of  the  phrnse  'kingdom  of  heaven'  is 
not  sustained.  The  Patriarchs  were  not  in  the  visible  kingdom 
of  heaven  when  those  words  (Matt.  viii.  11)  were  spoken,  con- 
sequently none  from  the  ea3t,  west,  north,  or  south,  could  sit 
down  with  them.  Our  Saviour  represents  persons  of  certain 
characters,  as  endeavoring  to  enter  the  gateway  of  heaven,  who, 
when  they  get  within  the  entrance,  are  found  to  be  desti- 
tute of  the  wedding  garment,  and  are  therefore  cast  out.  Such 
were  the  Pharisees,  who  were  persuaded  by  their  Rabbis,  that 
they  were  Sufficiently  righteous  to  enter  the  visible  and  invisibles 
kingdom,  inasmuch  as  they  were  the  seed,  and  had  the  e?7/n. 
But  while  such  were  rejected,  the  blessed  Redeemer  says,  th.it 

children  are  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven This  unspeakable 

lle-Mngis  not  obtained  by  birth,  baptism,  circumcision,  nor  any 

13* 


150  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM, 


invisible  kingdom,  which  will  not  truly  appear  until 
Christ's  second  coming.  2  Tim.  iv.  1.  For  it  is 
that  kingdom  which  none  can  "  enter"  but  such  as 
receive  it  as  a  little  child  (Mark  x.  15),  and  are 
really  converted  and  born  again.  Matt,  xviii.  3 ; 
John  iii.  3.  Into  that  kingdom  those  infants  who 
die  in  their  infancy  may  be  received,  and  they  have 
no  need  whatever  of  baptism,  in  order  to  be  par- 
takers of  it.  Baptism  belongs  to  the  visible  church 
of  Christ  on  earth,  which  many  false  professors,  in- 
deed, can  enter,  as  such  cannot  always  be  distin- 
guished from  the  true  ones.  See  Matt.  xiii.  47,  48; 
xxv.  2;  Acts  viii.  13.  In  order  to  be  a  member 
of  that  church  it  is  required  that  one  shall  profess 
his  faith  in  Christ  and  be  baptized.  And  as  infants 
cannot  make  such  a  profession,  they  neither  can  be 
visible  members  of  that  church,  nor  have  any  right 
to  baptism. 

In  vain  is  it  objected,  that  if  children  are  qualified 
to  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  glory,  they  are  much 
more  qualified  to  belong  to  the  visible  church  of 
Christ  on  earth.  For  when  God  receives  any  one 
to  His  kingdom  of  glory,  He  acts  as  an  almighty 
and  independent  Sovereign  :  and  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  many  are  now  in  the  kingdom  of  glory  who, 
while  on  earth,  could  not  be  received  into  a  visible 
church  of  God  through  an  outward  ceremonial  act. 

other  work  of  man,  but  by  the  election  of  grace,  through  the 
blood  of  Christ." — "Reply  to  Preesly,  by  Samuel  "Williams  (a 
Baptist)."  Cincinnati,  1853;  p.  33. 


ERRONEOUS   INTERPRETATIONS.  151 


But  He  lias  not  left  it  to  our  own  choice  to  receive 
every  one  as  a  member  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ, 
but  has  described,  definitely,  the  conditions  upon 
-which  we  are  bound  to  admit  to  the  fellowship  of 
that  church.  If  Pedobaptists  wish  to  blame  us  be- 
cause we  will  not,  as  they  say,  incorporate  with  the 
visible  church  of  Christ  such  as  are  admitted  to 
that  which  is  far  greater — the  kingdom  of  glory,  it 
may  be  observed  that  the  Pedobaptists  themselves 
are  just  as  blamable  in  denying  a  place  at  the 
Lord's  table  to  those  who,  notwithstanding,  are 
considered  qualified  to  receive  a  place  in  the  king- 
dom of  glory. 

Equally  vain  is  the  following  objection  :  "When 
Christ  declares  that  the  kingdom  of  God  belongs  to 
children,  they  can  also  be  considered  as  disciples 
of  Christ,  and  are,  consequently,  entitled  to  bap- 
tism." For  this  assertion  itself,  places  infants  out 
of  the  Commission.  The  Apostles  were  commanded 
to  moke  disciples ;  but  according  to  the  assertion, 
infants  were  already  disciples  ;  they  were  not  the 
materials,  therefore,  out  of  which  they  were  to  make 
disciples,  and,  consequently,  they  were  not  included 
in  the  Commission. 

That  new-born  children  cannot,  as  such,  be  made 
disciples,  nor  are  able  to  believe  the  Gospel,  is 
already  proved  (pp.  33,  69.)  And  could  it  even 
be  proved,  that  new-born  children  generally,  and 
those  of  believers  especially,  are  sanctified  from  their 
birth  by  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 


152  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


even  that  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  bap- 
tism. For  to  be  sanctified  by  the  immediate  oper- 
ation of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  be  made  a  disciple 
of  Christ  by  the  preaching  and  belief  of  the  Gospel, 
are  two  different  things.  But  now  it  can  in  nowise 
be  proved,  that  infants  generally,  or  those  of  be- 
lievers especially,  are  as  to  their  nature  sanctified 
from  their  birth.  On  the  contrary,  we  learn  from 
the  Scriptures,  that  they  are  u  by  nature  the  chil- 
dren of  wrath"  (Eph.  ii.  3),  corrupted  by  original 
sin  (Ps.  Ii.  7),  born  "flesh  of  flesh"  (John  iii.  6), 
that  they  are  "transgressors  from  the  womb"  (Isa. 
xlviii.  8),  "estranged  from  the  womb  and  go  astray 
as  soon  as  they  are  born"  (Ps.  lviii.  3),  &c.  And 
the  truth  of  this  is  proved  by  daily  experience.  For 
the  very  first  things  that  are  observed,  both  in  bap- 
tized and  unbaptized  children,  are  manifestations 
of  sinful  dispositions,  selfishness,  impatience,  peevish- 
ness, &c.  Yet  children  who  die  in  their  infancy  are 
saved  by  the  atonement  of  Christ.  They  have 
fallen  in  Adam,  but  in  the  fall  sunk  into  the  out- 
stretched arms  of  Christ.  This  truth  our  Saviour 
testifies  by  taking  them  up  in  His  arms,  putting  His 
hands  upon  them  and  blessing  them — an  act  in  the 
highest  degree  touching  and  instructive  ;  an  act 
that  speaks  more  powerfully  than  all  words,  in  com- 
fort to  bereaved  parents  ;  but — mark  ! — at  the  same 
time  an  act,  whereby  our  Saviour  tacitly  declares 
that  He  is  willing  to  bless  little  children  without 


ERRONEOUS  INTERPRETATIONS.    153 


baptism,  and  that  infant  baptism  is  no  part  of  the 
Gospel  dispensation. 

But  in  what  manner  God  saves  those  who  die  in 
their  infancy,  the  Scriptures  have  not  revealed,  as 
such  knowledge  is  not  necessary  for  us.  Nothing 
in  the  word  of  God  is  addressed  to  new-born  chil- 
dren, nor  are  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  commis- 
sioned with  a  message  to  them.  The  preaching  of 
the  Gospel  is  for  those  who  are  able  to  hear,  under- 
stand and  believe  it ;  and  not  for  unconscious  chil- 
dren. Faith  in  Christ  which  comes  by  hearing, 
secures  the  salvation  of  believers,  not  because  there 
is  any  saving  efficacy  in  faith  itself,  but  because,  by 
divine  appointment,  it  is  the  means  through  which 
they  apprehend  the  atonement  of  Christ.  Uncon- 
scious children  are  saved  by  the  all-wise  counsel  of 
God  in  some  other  way,  unknown  to  us.  If  they 
cannot  repent,  or  believe,  or  partake  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  church  of  Christ,  God  neither  requires 
it  from  them,  nor  do  they  lose  any  thing  from  the 
want  of  it. 

TESTIMONY. 

Dr.  Olshal'Sen  :  "  Of  the  allusion  to  infant 
bojj/.ism  often  sought  in  this  narrative,  there  is  evi- 
dently no  trace.  The  Redeemer  sets  forth  the  chil- 
dren to  the  Apostles  as  symbols  of  the  spiritual 
new  birth,  and  a  simple,  child-like  disposition.  But 
on  the  part  of  the  parents  who  brought  the  children, 
there  is  evidently  nothing  else  intended  than  a  spir- 
itual blessing  for  them,  and  this  the  infants  received 


154"  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


when  Jesus  put  His  hands  upon  them,  which,  in 
connection  with  the  prayer  offered  by  Jesus,  could 
not  be  without  a  beneficial,  spiritual  influence."* 

B. — Regeneration  of  Water  and  Spirit. 
u  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man 
be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God." — John  iii.  5. 

REMARKS. 

While  the  preceding  passage  on  the  one  hand 
has  been  considered  as  one  of  the  strongest  props 
for  the  baptism  of  infants,  because  our  Saviour  so 
graciously  acknowledged  them,  this,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  appealed  to  as  the  chief  argument  for  the 
necessity  of  infant  baptism,  because  it  is  supposed 
that,  according  to  it,  infants  could  not  be  saved 
without  baptism.  But  the  two  arguments,  when 
compared,  involve  a  self-contradiction.  According 
to  the  one  passage,  it  is  said,  infants  are  to  be  bap- 
tized, because  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs  to 
them,  and  they  are  partakers  of  Christ  and  of  His 
treasures  of  salvation  already,  previous  to  baptism  ; 
but,  according  to  this  they  are  to  be  baptized,  be- 
cause they  could  not  be  saved  without  baptism. 
Let  us  see  whether  this  latter  basis  for  infant  bap- 
tism is  able  to  support  it  better  than  the  former. 

In  the  first  place,  we  ought  not  to  lose  sight  of 

*  Biblical  Commentary,  on  Matt.  xix.  13.  14. 


ERRONEOUS   INTERPRETATIONS.  1. 


the  fact,  that  baptism  in  this  passage  is  not  so 
much  as  mentioned.  Ilere  mention  is  made  only 
of  a  birth  "  of  water  and  Spirit."  But  the  phrase, 
"born  of  water  and  Spirit,"  has  been,  and  still  is, 
an  object  of  much  controversy  among  the  most  dis- 
tinguished divines  of  the  Pedobaptists  themselves. 
Some  contend  that  the  word  "  water''  here  signifies 
the  water  of  baptism  ;  others,  that  it  signifies  the 
cleansing  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration ; 
others  again  explain  the  passage  in  other  ways. 
The  limits  of  this  treatise  do  not  allow  us  to  ex- 
amine these  different  expositions.  We  would  only 
remark,  that  before  this  passage  can  be  urged  as 
evidence  that  baptism  is  necessary  for  the  salvation 
of  infants,  it  must  be  clearly  proved  that  the  expres- 
sion <;  born  of  water  and  Spirit,"  signifies  born  again 
in  and  by  baptism. 

Suppose,  however,  that  the  expression  "  born  of 
water  and  Spirit,"  signifies  "born  again  in  and  by 
baptism,"  what  would  be  the  consequence  ?  Is  the 
meaning  of  our  passage  this  :  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  thee,  every  man,  without  any  exception,  who 
is  not  baptized,  and  by  baptism  born  again,  cannot 
be  saved  ?"  Such  a  sense  would  be  directly  opposed 
to  other  plain  passages  of  Scripture,  and  to  the 
whole  spirit  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  It  would  in 
that  case  no  more  be  a  truth,  that  man  is  saved 
through  faith  alone,  but  that  an  outward  perform- 
ance also  is  indispensably  necessary  for  salvation. 
Thus  the  thief  on  the  cross  could  not  be  saved  ;  for 


156  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


lie  was  evidently  not  baptized.  Nor  would  it  be 
true  that  Cornelius  and  bis  friends  were  already 
saved  before  baptism,  although  it  is  said  that  "  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  poured  out  upon  them, 
and  that  they  spoke  with  tongues  and  magnified 

God,"  EVEN  BEFORE  THEY  WERE  BAPTIZED.    Acts  X. 

44-48.  Likewise,  the  great  number  of  martyrs  in 
the  ancient  church  who  sealed  their  faith  on  Christ 
with  their  own  life  and  blood,  but  had  no  oppor- 
tunity to  receive  baptism,  could  not  be  saved. 
Thus  it  is  evident  that  the  Lord  Jesus  could  not 
here  have  purposed  to  teach,  that  baptism  is  indis- 
pensably necessary  to  salvation. 

If  the  word  "  water"  have  reference  to  baptism, 
the  utterance  of  our  Saviour  must  of  course  be  un- 
derstood with  a  necessary  limitation.  This  the  text 
also  very  well  allows.  For  there  it  does  not  read 
"every  one,"  but  only  "a  man."  "Except  a  man 
be  born,"  &c.  Here  "  a  man"  corresponds  to  the 
Greek  "tis,n  which  has  several  significations,  as  any, 
many,  one,  I,  thou,  etc.*  Therefore  the  meaning 
of  our  passage  is,  according  to  the  original,  either 
"Except  any,11  [I  do  not  tell  who,]  or  "except 
men  generally,11  [I  do  not  say  all  without  excep- 
tion,] or  even,  "except  thou  [Nicodemus]  be  born 
again  of  water  and  Spirit,"  &c.  Thus  we  find  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  on  purpose  has  used  a  word  which 
does  not  signify  "every  one11 — (as  in  the  16th  verse 

*  See  Matthiae  Gramm.  2  theil,  p.  1078,  nnrt  3)crnhardj's 
Wisenshaftt  Syntax  der  Griech  Sprache,  p.  i'.)'J. 


ERRONEOUS  INTERPRETATIONS.    157 


of  this  chapter) — but  a  word  that  has  a  more  cir- 
cumscribed and  vague  signification.  One  cannot, 
consequently,  with  any  appearance  of  a  sound  in- 
terpretation, from  our  passage  force  the  meaning 
that  would  denounce  the  sentence  of  eternal  death 
on  all  unbaptized  children.  If,  therefore,  the  word 
water  signifies  the  water  of  baptism,  it  must  only 
proclaim  the  general  rule,  by  which  such  as  could 
hear  and  understand  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation 
through  Christ,  could  be  saved.  The  Lord  did  not 
mean  to  say  that  new-born  children  who  are  inca- 
pable of  receiving  the  Gospel,  and  are  an  exception 
to  the  ordinary  rule,  cannot  be  saved  without  bap- 
tism. He  was  explaining  to  Nicodemus  what,  ac- 
cording to  the  Scripture  rule,  was  essential  for  sal- 
vation. He  first  tells  him  (v.  3),  that  regeneration 
is  necessary,  and  then  (if  "water"  really  signifies 
the  water  of  baptism),  He  adds  to  this,  baptism,  as 
a  public  avowal  of  faith  in  Him.  But  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  new-born  children  were  clearly  not 
under  consideration. 

If  the  word  "  water"  has  reference  to  baptism,  we 
further  have  to  ascertain  the  true  import  of  the 
expression  "  born  of  water  and  Spirit."  Then  bap- 
tism and  regeneration  must  here  be  connected  in 
language  in  the  same  way  that  faith  and  baptism  is, 
in  Mark  xvi.  16.  In  neither  of  these  places  is  it 
taught,  that  baptism  is  essentially  necessary  for  sal- 
vation, but  at  most,  only  that  it  is  something  that 
is  ordinarily  to  accompany  faith  and  the  new  birth. 
14 


158  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM 


Baptism  alone,  without  faith,  does  not  regenerate 
or  save  any.  The  subject  of  baptism,  therefore, 
must  have  faith  before  baptism ;  and  whosoever 
hath  faith,  he  is  also  regenerated — not  by  baptism, 
but  by  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God.  See  James  i. 
18;  1  Pet.  i.  23  ;  John  i.  12,  13;  Gal.  iii.  26  ;  1 
John  v.  1.  But  as  regeneration  takes  place  when 
a  man  receives  faith,  and  baptism  is  the  expression 
of  faith  which  necessarily  follows  ;  a  person  who  is 
unwilling  to  express  or  profess  his  faith,  gives  no 
evidence  of  faith  or  of  regeneration  ;  whence  bap- 
tism, as  the  outward  sign  of  faith  and  regeneration, 
may  thus  be  rightly  connected  in  language  with  re- 
generation. The  work  of  the  Spirit  through  the 
wrord  makes  a  man  a  new  creature,  and  baptism  is 
the  manifestation  of  the  change.  The  confession 
of  faith,  and  the  public  putting  on  of  Christ  by  bap- 
tism, must  be  added  to  exhibit  man  as  a  new  crea- 
ture. When  a  man  who  has  received  spiritual  life, 
manifests  it  by  putting  on  Christ  in  baptism,  then 
he  is  born  of  water  and  Spirit — his  new  birth  is 
apparent.  If,  therefore,  one  would  ask,  "If  faith 
alone  saves  man,  why  then  is  baptism  so  necessary, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  could  say,  'Except  a  man  be 
born  of  water  and  Spirit,  lie  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  V  "  The  answer  would  be :  Baptism 
is  the  public  profession  of  faith,  and  when  one  will- 
fully refuses  to  make  such  a  confession,  there  is  no 
evidence  either  of  faith  or  salvation.  See  Matt.  x.  32, 
33;  Rom.  x.  8-10;  Rev.  xxi.  8.     And  as  the  con- 


ERRONEOUS   INTERPRETATIONS.  159 


fession  of  Christ  is  in  some  sense  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, so  in  like  manner  baptism  might  be  said  to  be 
a  necessary  mode  of  confessing  Christ. 

Th<  ;ion  that  new-born  children  must  be 

born  again  by  infant  baptism  in  order  to  be  saved, 
is  in  fact  too  absurd  to  be  maintained  by  any  evan- 
gelical Christian.  It  betrays  that  self-righteousness 
which  is  so  deeply  rooted  in  human  nature.  For 
it  maintains  that  it  is  so  necessary  for  man  to  do 
something  for  obtaining  the  grace  of  God,  that 
even  the  new-born  child,  which  is  not  able  for  itself 
to  perform  the  supposed  conditions  of  salvation, 
must  perform  them  through  others.  This  is  to 
make  a  false  Saviour  of  Baptism,  and  implies  a 
criminal  unbelief  in  the  all-sufficiency  of  Christ.  It 
is  in  fact  not  a  less  gross  error  than  the  doctrine 
of  the  soul  masses  for  the  dead,  of  indulgences,  of 
worshiping  departed  saints,  etc..  as  maintained  by 
the  Roman  Catholics.  This  supposition,  however, 
has  now  been  rejected  by  the  most  of  Protestant 
Pedobaptists  as  an  error  betraying  palpable  ignor- 
ance and  papal  darkness. 

TESTIMONY. 

Luther  :  "As  to  the  children  of  the  Jews  which 
died  before  the  eighth  day,  it  is  easy  to  answer,  as 
well  as  concerning  our  little  children  dying  before 
baptism.  For  they  do  not  sin  against  the  covenant 
of  circumcision  or  baptism.  For  inasmuch  as  the 
law  commands  that  thev  should  be  circumcised  on 


160  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


the  eighth  day,  why  then  would  God  condemn  them 
that  died  before  the  eighth  day  ?  Therefore  their 
souls  are  to  be  committed  to  the  will  of  the  heav- 
enly Father,  who,  we  know,  is  merciful.  And  hereto 
is  also  to  be  referred  what  Paul  says  in  Rom.  v.  14, 
of  those  who  have  not  sinned  after  the  similitude 
of  Adam's  transgression.  And  of  Jacob  and  Esau 
he  says  in  the  same  Epistle,  ch.  ix.  11,  Neither 
having  done  any  good  or  evil.  For  though  the 
infants  carry  with  them  innate  sin,  which  we  call 
original  sin ;  yet  it  is  something  great  that  they 
still  have  sinned  nothing  against  the  law.  As  then 
God  by  His  nature  is  merciful,  He  will  not  for  this 
cause  suffer  them  to  be  in  any  worse  condition,  be- 
cause they  neither  could  obtain  circumcision  in  the 
Old  Testament,  nor  baptism  in  the  New."* 

C.— The  Children  of  Christians  Holy. 
"  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by 
the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by 
the  husband  :  else  were  your  children  unclean,  but 
now  are  they  holy." — 1  Cor.  vii.  14. 

REMARK. 

Many  persons  consider  this  passage  as  one  of 
the  strongest  arguments  in  favor  of  infant  baptism, 
because  children  here  are  said  to  be  "  holy"  by 
their  connection  with  Christian  parents.  But  this 
passage  is  so  far  from  containing  any  argument  in 

*  Luthcri  Opp.  Exeg.  Lut.  ErlaDgoe,  torn.  iv.  p.  78. 


ERRONEOUS   INTERPRETATIONS.  161 


favor  of  infant  baptism  that,  on  the  contrary,  it 
affords  a  conclusive  evidence  against  it.  We  pre- 
fer to  insert  the  able  exposition  of  this  passage  of 
Rev.  J.  L.  Dagg,  D.D.,  who  writes  thus: 

11  The  Jews  considered  all  Gentiles  to  be  unclean, 
and  thought  it  unlawful  for  a  Jew  to  be  in  the 
house,  keep  company,  or  eat  with,  or  touch  a  Gen- 
tile. By  some  means,  possibly  from  the  influence 
of  Judaizing  teachers,  the  church  at  Corinth  seems 
to  have  been  agitated  with  the  question,  whether 
the  same  rule  ought  not  to  be  established  to  regulate 
the  intercourse  of  the  members  of  the  church  with 
other  persons;  that  is,  whether  the  church  ought  not 
to  decide,  that  all  who  were  without  were  unclean  to 
them  who  were  within,  just  as  Gentiles  were  unclean 
to  Jews  ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  was  inconsistent 
with  Christian  purity  to  dwell,  keep  company,  eat 
with,  or  touch  them.  While  this  question  was  un- 
dergoing discussion  in  the  church,  it  was  perceived 
that  it  involved  a  very  important  case.  Some  of 
their  members  were  married  to  unbelievers,  and  if 
such  a  rule  should  be  established,  these  members 
would  be  compelled  to  separate  from  their  unbeliev- 
ing husbands  or  wives.  Although  the  lawfulness  of 
the  marriage  was  not  questioned,  yet  it  would  be 
unlawful  fur  a  believing  husband  to  dwell  with  his 
wife,  until  God  had  converted  her.  The  church 
resolved — probably  after  much  discussion  of  the 
question — to  write  to  the  Apostle  respecting  it. 
This  letter  he  had  received,  as  appears  from  the 
11* 


162  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


first  verse  of  this  chapter.  On  the  general  question 
of  intercourse  with,  unbelievers  he  treats  in  the  fifth 
chapter,  and  decides  that  to  keep  company  or  eat 
with  persons  who  make  no  pretension  to  religion  is 
not  unlawful,  and  that  were  all  such  persons  to  be 
esteemed  unclean,  and  their  touch  polluting,  Chris- 
tians most  needs  go  out  of  the  world.  On  the  par- 
ticular case  of  those  members  of  the  church  who 
were  married  to  unbelievers,  the  Apostle  treats  in 
the  chapter  before  us.  He  decides,  in  verses  12 
and  13,  that  they  may  lawfully  dwell  together;  and 
in  verse  14,  for  the  conviction  and  silencing  of  any 
members  of  the  church  who  might  object  to  this 
decision,  he  in  substance  says  :  '  The  unbelieving 
husband  is  not  unclean,  so  that  his  wife  may  not 
lawfully  dwell  with  him  ;  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
not  unclean,  so  that  her  husband  may  not  lawfully 
dwell  with  her.  If  they  are  unclean,  then  your 
children  are  unclean,  and  not  one  parent  in  the 
•whole  church  must  dwell  with  or  touch  his  children 
until  God  shall  convert  them  ;  and  thus  Christians 
will  be  made  to  sever  the  ties  that  bind  parents  to 
their  children,  and  throw  out  the  offspring  of  Chris- 
tian parents  into  the  ungodly  world  from  their  very 
birth,  without  any  provision  for  their  protection, 
support,  or  religious  education.' 

"  It  will  be  perceived  in  the  preceding  interpre- 
tation, that  the  phrase  your  children  is  taken  in  a 
different  sense  from  that  which  it  obtains  in  any  of 
the  interpretations  usually  offered.     It  is  here  sup- 


EBBOXKOUS   LN'TEBPBETATIOXS.  163 


|  1  to  refer  to  the  whole  church.  Had  the 
-V  m  stle  designed  to  speak  of  those  children  only 
Who  have  one  parent  a  believer  and  the  other  an 
unbeliever,  he  would  have  said  (tekna  auton)  their 
children,  instead  of  (tekna  human)  your  children. 
In  addressing  the  church,  and  in  giving  general 
ills,  he  uses  the  pronouns  ye  and  you  (see 
] ^receding  chapter  throughout,  and  verses  1  and  5 
of  this  chapter).  But  in  verse  8,  where  he  gives 
directions  applicable  to  particular  cases,  although 
he  introduces  the  phrase,  '  I  say  to  the  unmarried 
i  i  1  widows,'  he  makes  reference  to  these  persons, 
not  by  the  pronoun  you,  but  them  :  '  It  is  good  for 
them  to  abide  even  as  I.'  The  same  mode  of  speak- 
ing he  continues  to  use  as  far  down  as  to  the  verse 
in  question  :  ■  Let  them  marry,  let  him  not  put  her 
away;  let  her  not  leave  him.1  After  the  same 
manner  he  would  have  said,  'Else  were  their  chil- 
dren unclean,'  had  he  intended  only  the  children  of 
such  cases  of  mixed  marriage  as  are  referred  to  in 
the  preceding  part  of  the  verse.  What  further  con- 
firms this  opinion  is,  that  in  the  original  text  the 
substantive  verb  is  in  the  present  tense — '  your  chil- 
dren are  unclean7 — a  mode  of  speaking  more  suited 
for  the  stating  of  a  parallel  than  a  dependent  case. 
'•  The  general  principles  of  the  preceding  inter- 
pretation fall  in  precisely  with  the  course  of  the 
Apostle's  argument  commenced  in  the  5th  chapter. 
When  these  principles  have  been  established,  it  is 
not  of  vital  importance  to  the  sense  of  the  passage 


164:  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


to  determine  the  translation  of  the  preposition  en. 
Many  have  translated  it  to,  as  it  is  in  the  very  next 
verse.  This  sense  accords  well  with  our  interpreta- 
tion. '  The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  to  the 
wife,'  just  as  it  is  said  in  Titus  i.  15,  'Unto  the 
pure  all  things  are  pure.'  But  perhaps  the  more 
literal  rendering  in  will  give  the  Apostle's  sense 
more  accurately.  AYhile  both  parents  lived  in  un- 
belief they  were  unclean  to  themselves  and  to  each 
other.  '  Unto  them  that  are  defiled  and  unbelieving 
is  nothing  pure,  but  even  their  mind  and  conscience 
is  defiled.'  Titus  i.  15.  According  to  the  Jewish 
rules  respecting  ceremonial  cleauness,  the  conver- 
sion of  one  party  would  not  render  the  other  party 
holy.  But  in  Gospel  ceremonies  it  is  different.  By 
the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law,  and 
by  the  conversion  of  the  wife,  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band (hegiastai)  has  become  holy,  not  in  himself,  but 
(en  te  gynaiki)  in  the  wife.  That  the  Jews  con- 
sidered Gentiles  unclean,  as  stated  above,  may  be 
proved  from  various  passages  of  Scripture  :  see 
Acts  x.  28  ;  xi.  3  ;  John  xviii.  28  ;  Gal.  ii.  12. 
Dr.  Adam  Clarke  says,  in  his  note  on  John  xviii. 
28,  '  The  Jews  considered  even  the  touch  of  a  Gen- 
tile as  a  legal  defilement.' 

11  From  the  text,  thus  interpreted,  the  following 
inference  may  be  drawn  :  Infant  baptism  was  un- 
known in  the  churches  planted  by  the  Ap>ostles. 

"Paul  expressly  affirms  that  the  children  are  un- 
clean, with  the  exception  of  the  holiness  which  they 


ERRONEOUS   INTERPRETATIONS.  165 


possess  in  common  with  unbelieving  adults.  This 
holiness  entitles  unbelieving  adults  to  familiar  in- 
tercourse, but  not  to  church-membership  or  Chris- 
tian ordinances;  and  it  can  do  no  more  for  the 
children.  Hence,  the  children  are  so  far  holy,  as 
to  be  fit  for  familiar  intercourse ;  but  beyond  this 
they  are  unclean,  and  therefore  unfit  for  church- 
membership  or  baptism.  This  is  true,  let  it  be  re- 
membered, not  only  of  those  children  who  were  the 
offspring  of  mixed  marriages,  but  of  all  the  children 
of  Christian  parents  at  Corinth. 

"  The  point  may  be  exhibited  in  another  light. 
The  church  at  Corinth  was  a  Pedobaptist  church, 
or  it  was  not.  If  it  was  a  Pedobaptist  church,  the 
argument  of  Paul  was  invalid,  because  it  was  based 
on  the  false  assumption,  that  the  children  sealed 
with  the  seal  of  God's  covenant,  dedicated  to  Him 
in  the  holy  rite  of  baptism,  and  admitted  within  the 
pale  of  the  church,  were  in  like  circumstances  with 
unbelieving  and  unbaptized  adults,  who  were  out 
of  the  covenant,  and  out  of  the  church.  But  Paul 
did  not  use  an  invalid  argument,  therefore  this 
church  was  not  Pedobaptist ;  and  the  same  must  be 
true  of  all  the  churches  planted  by  the  Apostles, 
since  they  were,  doubtless,  all  similarly  organized. 

"The  phrase  'your  children''  included  the  off- 
spring, not  only  of  the  gentile  members  of  the 
church,  but  also  of  the  Judaizers  who  had  produced 
disquietude  by  their  attachment  to  Ceremonial  dis- 
tinctions and  usages.  These  men  gloried  in  the 
covenant  of  circumcision ;  and  contemplated  their  off- 


166  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


spriug  with  pleasure,  as  the  children  of  the  covenant, 
circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,  or  entitled  to  receive 
the  seal  of  the  covenant  in  any  form  which  might 
be  divinely  authorized.  If  the  Christian  church  was 
established  on  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  no 
children  on  earth  had  a  better  right  to  its  privileges, 
than  these  lineal  descendants  of  Abraham,  who 
were,  at  the  same  time,  the  immediate  offspring  of 
Christian  parents.  Yet  to  these  parents  the  Apos- 
tle declares  the  unwelcome  truth,  that,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  Christian  church,  their  children,  and 
the  uncircumcised  and  unbelieving  gentile,  were  on 
the  same  level.  Nothing  could  demonstrate  more 
conclusively  that  the  Christian  church  was  not 
established  on  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  The 
text,  therefore,  is  the  authoritative  decision  of 
Paul  against  the  doctrine  which  infant  baptism 
claims  for  its  foundation. 

"Our  inference  has  been  sustained.  It  has  been 
proved  that  infant  baptism  was  unknown  in  the 
churches  planted  by  the  Apostles  ;*  and  further, 

•  With  the  author  of  this  treatise  the  first  doubts  about  the 
divine  origin  of  infant  baptism  -were  aroused  in  contemplating 
this  test.  He  had  previously  been  of  the  opinion  that,  though 
there  could  not  be  found  any  distinct  example  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament as  an  evidence  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  yet  it  might 
be  that  it  had  an  apostolic  origin,  as  no  distinct  example  could 
be  found  against  such  a  supposition.  But  from  this  passage  he 
saw,  that  if  infant  baptism  had  been  introduced  by  the  Apostle 
into  the  Corinthian  church,  he  could  not,  under  any  circum- 
stances, have  questioned  whether  the  children  might  not  have 
been  "  unclean,"  because  baptism  would  have  made  them  ''holy." 


ERRONEOUS   INTERPRETATIONS.  167 


that  its  fundamental  doctrine  is  not  apostolical.  In 
such  a  controversy,  to  prove  the  negative  by  direct 
argument,  could  scarcely  have  been  expected;  yet 
this  has  been  accomplished,  by  means  of  a  text  on 
which  Pedobaptists  have  relied  with  much  confi- 
dence.'** 

TESTIMONIES. 

Dressler:  "The  idea  of  a  Christian  nobility  is 
foreign  to  the  Bible.  By  birth,  man  is  only  man. 
According  to  Paul,  a  holy  pedigree  is  nothing  in 
religion.  Neither  circumcision  nor  uncircumcision 
availeth  any  thing,  but  keeping  the  commands  of 
God.  The  passage  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  does  not  sup- 
port any  such  views.  Paul  had  said  that  if  one 
would  avoid  all  contact  with  pagans,  he  must  leave 
the  world.  He  now  says,  if  the  Corinthians  would 
flee  from  every  unbeliever,  regarding  him  as  unclean, 
they  must  flee  from  their  own  children,  and  hold 
them  as  unclean  ;  for  they  were  among  the  unbe- 
lievers— 'otherwise  your  children  would  be  un- 
clean'— for  they  are  not  Christians  by  birth  merely. 
'But  now  are  they  holy,'  i.  e.,  you  are  not  to  con- 
sider yourselves  as  polluted  by  them."f 

Dr.  II.  A.  W.  Meyer  :  "  Sanctified  is  she  in  the 
brother\  (who  is  her  companion),  so  that  in  him 

*  "  History  of  Baptism,"  by  I.  T.  Hinton,  Philadelphia,  pp. 
1-44—146  ;  and  "A  Decisive  Argument  against  Infant  Baptism," 
by  J.  L.  Dagg,  Charleston,  pp.  49-52. 

f   "  Doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,"  p.  137. 

X  According  to  another  reading  in  the  original,  instead  of 
"  the  husband." 


168  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


her  holiness  consists,  or  has  its  mediate  cause. 
Else  are,  &c:  because — if  this  sanctification  (hegi- 

aslai)  does  not  take  place — your  children  are  un- 
clean, that  is,  profane.  That  the  children  of  Chris- 
tians are  not  profane,  but  holy,  is  the  thing  conceded; 
by  which  Paul  proves  that  the  unchristian  com- 
panion is  sanctified  through  his  Christian  mate  ; 
for  just  as  with  the  children,  nothing;  but  the  special 
connection  with  Christians  (their  parents),  is  the 
sanctifying  means,  so  also  must  the  same  connec- 
tion in  the  mixed  marriage  have  an  influence. 
Had  infant  baptism  at  that  time  already  existed, 
Paul  could  not  have  drawn  such  a  conclusion,  be- 
cause the  holiness  of  the  children  of  Christians 
icould  then  have  had  another  ground."1* 

Dr.  de  Wette  :  "  Epei  estin — for  else  your  chil- 
dren are  unclean,  but  now  they  are  holy,  viz.,  through 
connection  with  you.  The  latter  the  Apostle  can- 
not announce  as  an  uncontested  supposition  of  the 
children  of  mixed  marriages,  as  it  was  yet  a  matter 
of  doubt  (which  he  here  wishes  to  remove),  whether 
in  a  mixed  marriage  a  holy  connection  could  exist, 
and  he,  consequently,  would  have  been  seeking  to 
prove  the  contested  tiling  by  something  that  was 
contested.''^ 

Dr.  Olshausen  :  "It  is  evident  that  Paul  would 
not  have  chosen  this  way  of  arguing,  if  infant  bap- 
tism already  at  that  time  had  been  in  use. ''J 

*  Commentary  on  1  Cor.  vii.  ]  4. 
f  Commentary  on  the  passage. 
J  Eiblical  Commentary  on  the  passage. 


ERRONEOUS  INTERPRETATIONS.     169 


D. —  The  Washing  of  Regeneration. 
"But  when  the  kindness  and  love  toward  man  of 
our  Saviour,  God,  appeared,  not  by  the  works  in 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according 
to  His  mercy  He  saved  us  by  the  bath  of  regenera- 
tion and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  He 
shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Saviour,  that  being  justified  by  His  grace,  we  should 
be  made  heirs  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life." 
Tit.  iii.  4-7. — (Verbally  after  the  original.) 

REMARKS. 

This  passage,  as  well  as  John  iii.  5,  has  been  ex- 
plained by  the  learned  in  different  ways.  They 
have  especially  disagreed  in  interpreting  the  word 
"bath,"  or  "washing,"  one  part  having  seen  in  it 
the  bath  of  baptism  ;  others,  again,  having  under- 
stood it  to  be  a  figurative  expression,  signifying 
the  cleansing  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regener- 
ation. As  the  Apostle  does  not  here  make  any 
express  mention  of  baptism,  the  word  "bath"  may 
justly  be  taken  in  a  figurative  sense.  This,  too,  is 
favored  by  the  6th  verse,  where  God  is  said  to  have 
poured  out  the  Holy  Spirit  richly.  In  regenera- 
tion, or  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  man  is,  as 
it  were,  immersed  in  the  richly-effused,  cleansing, 
quickening,  and  saving  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit : 
and  in  this  respect  regeneration  may,  indeed,  here 
be  said,  in  a  figurative  sense,  to  involve  a  bathing 
of  the  soul. 
15 


170  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


If  we,  however,  take  for  granted  that  the  word 
"  bath"  here  refers  to  baptism,  then  again  the  ques- 
tion arises  :  In  what  relation  is  baptism  here  placed 
to  regeneration  ?  "We  have  already,  in  the  exposi- 
tion of  John  iii.  5,  shown  that  baptism  is  not  the 
efficient  cause  but  merely  the  accompaniment  of  re- 
generation, which  great  change  is  effected  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  only  through  the  word.  If,  therefore, 
the  expression,  "  the  bath  of  regeneration,"  signifies 
the  bath  of  baptism,  this  expression  must  be  inter- 
preted in  the  same  way  as  the  expression  "born  of 
water  and  Spirit."  The  Holy  Spirit  works  "the 
renewing,"  and  baptism  is  its  sign.  The  Spirit  im- 
parts a  new  life  ;  baptism  manifests  it.  In  this 
sense  baptism  maybe  called  a  "bath  of  regener- 
ation." 

It  is  evident  that  this  passage  has  no  reference 
to  new-born  children,  but  only  to  adult  persons  :  to 
these  alone  the  Apostle  is  writing  ;  of  these  alone 
does  he  speak.  Xew-born  children  cannot  be  born 
again  through  faith  in  the  Gospel  and  the  word  of 
truth,  and  much  less  through  baptism  alone.  Fur- 
ther it  is  to  be  observed,  that  all  those  who  are  in- 
cluded in  this  passage  are  represented  as  saved, 
regenerated,  richly  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  justi- 
fied, and  heirs  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal 
life  :  expressions  which  by  no  means  will  apply 
to  new-born  children,  of  whose  regeneration,  justifi- 
cation by  faith,  hope,  etc.,  the  Scriptures  nowhere 
speak. 


SECTION   XYIII. 

PASSAGES    WHOSE    REFERENCE    TO    BAPTISM    IS 

POUETEUE. 

11  That  He  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the 
washing  of  water  by  the  word." — Eph.  v.  2G. 

If  the  expression,  "the  washing  of  water,''  here 
signifies  baptism — which  is  a  subject  of  dispute 
among  the  learned — this  passage  also  is  to  be  in- 
terpreted in  accordance  with  the  preceding.  As  in 
1  Pet.  iii.  21,  the  water  of  baptism  is  not  saving, 
but  the  "covenant  of  a  good  conscience  with  God," 
so  here  neither  is  the  "washing  of  water"  that  which 
cleanses  the  soul,  but  the  Word.  "  That  He  might 
cleanse  it  by  the  word.'7  In  accordance  herewith 
we  also  read  in  John  xv.  3,  "  Xow  ye  are  clean 
through  the  word  which  I  have  spoken  unto  you  ;" 
and  Acts  xv.  9,  "  God  purified  their  hearts  by  faith." 
"  The  washing  of  water"  is,  consequently,  here  only 
the  emblem  of  that  which  is  effected  by  the  word 
and  faith.  Believers  are  cleansed  "  in  baptism" 
emblematically  :  the  reality  that  corresponds  to  the 
emblem   they   have  experienced    in    believing   the 

(171)    ' 


172  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


word.  Now  new-born  children  cannot  be  cleansed 
by  believing  the  word  ;  wherefore,  if  "the  washing 
of  water"  signifies  baptism,  new-born  children  have 
nothing  to  do  with  that  washing,  which  is  appointed 
for  such  only  as  have  by  faith  received  the  word  to 
their  spiritual  cleansing. 

"Ye  are  washed,  ye  are  sanctified,  ye  are  justi- 
fied in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the 
{Spirit  of  our  God." — 1  Cor.  vi.  11. 

If  the  expression  "  washed"  here  has  reference 
to  baptism,  this  passage  also  has  nothing  to  do  with 
infant  baptism.  For  new-born  children  cannot  be 
said  to  be  washed,  sanctified  and  justified  by  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus — a  phraseology  that  clearly 
presupposes  faith  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

"  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in  full  as- 
surance of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from 
an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure 
water."— Heb.  x.  22. 

Even  this  passage  has  been  differently  interpreted 
by  the  learned ;  some  having  referred  it  to  bap- 
tism, others,  on  the  contrary,  having  here  seen  only 
a  figurative  mode  of  speaking.  To  us  the  latter 
interpretation  seems  to  be  the  right  one.  The 
phrase,  "  Our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  con- 
science," is  evidently  figurative,  having  reference  to 


DOUBTFUL    REFERENCES. 


it; 


the  purifications  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood  of  the 
Old  Testament.  See  Ex.  xxix.  11;  Lev.  viii.  30. 
It  seems,  therefore,  most  natural  also  to  understand 
figuratively  the  words,  "Our  bodies  washed,"  etc. 
The  phraseology  refers  to  the  washing  of  the 
priests  in  the  Old  Testament.  See  Ex.  xxix.  4  ; 
xxx.  IS— 21.  The  pure,  or  purifying  water  is.  con- 
sequently, a  spiritual  water.  Ex.  xxxvi.  25,  26. 


SECTION  XIX. 

SUMMARY   OP    TESTIMONIES    ON    THE    NEW   TESTA- 
MENT DOCTRINE  CONCERNING   BAPTISM. 

We  have  now  examined  all  the  passages  of  the 
New  Testament  that  either  expressly  mention  bap- 
tism, or  have  been  considered  as  containing  any  allu- 
sion to  it,  and  we  ask  our  readers  this  question  :  Las 
sprinkling  or  pouring  water  upon  new-born  chil- 
dren in  any  place  been  commanded,  mentioned,  or 
in  any  way  alluded  to  ?  We  doubt  not  that  every 
one  who  has,  with  us,  attentively  and  impartially 
considered  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles 
on  this  subject,  will  feel  constrained  to  assent  to  the 
following  testimonies  of  distinguished  divines  among 
the  Pedobaptists  themselves : 

Professor  Langs  :  "  All  attempts  to  make  out 
infant  baptism  from  the  New  Testament  fail.  It  is 
totally  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  apostolic  age, 
and  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment."* 

Starck  :  "  There  is  not  a  single  example  to  be 
found  in  the  New  Testament  where  infants  were 

*   On  Infant  B;ipti.^m,  p.  101. 

(174) 


PEDOBAPTIST    TESTIMONIES.  17 


baptized.  In  household  baptisms  there  was  always 
reference  to  the  Gospel,  as  having  been  received. 
The  New  Testament  presents  just  as  good  grounds 
for  infant  communion."'* 

Moris  :  "  But  we  do  not  do  it"  [baptize  infants] 
u  according  to  any  express  command,  as  no  such  is 
to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Xew  Testament, 
nor  according  to  any  distinct  example  there  occur- 
ring, nor  as  in  consequence  of  a  conclusion  from 
any  passage  of  Scripture."^ 

Bretschxeider  :  "  Rheinard,  ATorus,  and  Doder- 
lein,  say — Infant  baptism  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Bible."! 

Sciileiermacher  :  "All  traces  of  infant  baptism 
which  one  will  find  in  the  Xew  Testament,  must  first 
be  put  inlo  #."§ 

Neander  :  "  It  is  certain  that  Christ  did  not 
ordain  infant  baptism."  ....  "  We  cannot  prove 
that  the  Apostles  ordained  infant  baptism. "|| 

Dr.  Hagexbach  :  "  The  passages  from  Scrip- 
ture which  are  thought  to  intimate  that  infant  bap- 
tism had  come  into  use  in  the  primitive  church,  are 
doubtful  and  prove  nothing."*" 

Klein  :    "  New-born  infants  are   incapable   of 

*  History  of  Baptism,  p.  11, 

t  "  Christian  Theology,"  Lineoping  (Sweden),  1799,  p.  329. 

i  Theology.  voL  2,  p.  7o*. 

I  Christian  Theology,  p.  ::c". 

:    History  of  Christian  Religion,  vol.  1,  p.  360. 

«    •'  History  of  the  Doctrine?,"  Edinburgh,  1S46.  vol.  1,  p.  193. 

15* 


176  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


faith,  and  the  New  Testament  mentions  the  baptism 
of  adults  only."* 

Limborch  :  "  No  instance  can  be  produced  from 
which  it  may  be  indisputably  inferred  that  any  child 
was  baptized  by  the  Apostles,  "f 

Dr.  Goodwin  :  "Read  all  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, still  it  is  said — They  believed  and  were  bap- 
tized."J 

Bishop  Burnet  :  "  There  is  no  express  precept 
or  rule  given  in  the  New  Testament,  for  the  bap- 
tism of  infants.  "§ 

Dr.  Woods  :  "  It  is  a  plain  case  that  there  is  no 
express  precept  respecting  infant  baptism  in  our 
sacred  writings.  There  is  no  mention  made  in  the 
Xew  Testament  of  any  definite  instructions  of 
Christ  to  the  Apostles,  or  of  the  Apostles  to  Chris- 
tians, in  regard  to  the  baptism  of  little  children.  J,|| 

Professor  Stuart  :  "  Commands,  or  plain  and 
certain  examples  in  the  New  Testament  relative  to 
it"  [infant  baptism],  "I  do  not  find."^[ 

Winer:  "In  the  apostolic  age,  baptism  was  by 
immersion,  as  its  symbolical  explanation  shows."** 

Neander  :   "Baptism  was  originally  administered 


*  In  Huiterus  Redivivus,  p.  344. 

f  Comp.  Sys.  Div.  Lib.  5,  c.  22. 

+  Works,  vol.  1,  part  1,  p.  200. 

I  "Expos,  of  the  39  Articles,"  art.  27. 

||  "Lectures  on  Infant  Baptism,"  pp.  17,  40. 

■jf   "  Biblical  Repository,"  1833,  p.  3S5. 

**  "Manuscript  Lect.  on  Christ.  Antiquities." 


PEDOBAPTIST    TESTIMONIES. 


177 


by  immersion,  and  man}'  of  the  comparisons  of 
St.  Paul  allude  to  this  form  of  its  administration.'1* 

Bretschneider  :  "  The  apostolic  church  bap- 
tized only  by  immersion. ''f 

Guerike  :  "  Baptism  was  originally  administered 
by  immersion. v\ 

Hahn  :  "According  to  the  apostolic  instruction 
and  example,  baptism  was  performed  by  immersing 
the  whole  man.v§ 

*   Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  361. 
f  Theology,  vol.  1,  p.  634. 

|  Handbuch  der  Kircbengeschichte,  6  Auft.,  1  b.,  \  173. 
Theology,  p.  556. 


SECTION  XX. 


CIRCUMCISION. 


We  might  now  let  the  whole  question  of  the  origin 
and  propriety  of  infant  baptism  depend  upon  what 
we  have  already  learned  from  the  New  Testament. 
For  to  go  back  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  Old, 
in  order  to  find  an  evidence  either  for  or  against 
infant  baptism,  must  strike  every  unprejudiced  mind 
as  a  preposterous  proceeding.  Baptism  is  evidently 
an  institution  belonging  to  the  New  Testament 
alone,  and  from  it  alone  it  must  derive  its  laws. 
Yet,  most  Pedobaptists  go  back  from  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  New  Testament — the  holy  Commission 
of  Christ  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20,  and  Mark  xvi.  15, 
16 — to  the  abrogated  rites  of  the  Old  Testament, 
in  order  there  to  find  a  ground  for  infant  baptism. 
Thither  we,  consequently,  must  accompany  them, 
and  there  meet  them  on  their  own  ground  with  the 
decided  protest  of  the  Gospel  against  any  imag- 
inary transfer  of  the  ceremonies  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment to  the  New  Testament  dispensation. 

The  argument  which  Pedobaptists  build  on  the 
Old  Testament,  rests  on  the  three  following  grounds: 

The  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham 
(178) 


CIRCUMCISION.  179 


and  his  seed,  was  the  covenant  of  grace — the  same 
in  its  nature  as  that  under  which  we  live. 

Circumcision  was  the  seal  of  this  covenant  of 
grace,  confirming  all  its  blessings  to  Abraham,  and 
to  his  posterity. 

Baptism  has  in  the  Xew  Testament  come  in  the 
place  of  circumcision,  and  is  now,  as  circumcision 
was  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  seal  of  the  covenant 
of  grace. 

We  will  take  up  and  briefly  examine  each  of  these 
grounds, 

1.  As  to  the  first  ground,  it  may  be  remarked  : 
The  only  covenant  under  which  we,  as  Christians, 
live,  is  that  which  God  from  eternity  has  purposed 
in  Christ,  Eph.  iii.  11,  and  in  the  fullness  of  time 
established  by  His  atoning  death.  This  everlast- 
ing covenant  became  a  covenant  of  promise  at  the 
fall  of  Adam,  thus  reading  :  "  The  seed  of  the 
woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head."  Gen.  iii. 
15.  This  covenant  of  promise  was  then  narrowed 
down  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  in  Gen.  xii.  1-3,  and 
xxii.  15,  16,  where  it  is  contained  in  one  of  the  two 
promises  given  to  Abraham,  viz.,  in  the  promise 
that  "  in  his  seed  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should 
be  blessed."  Then  it  was  narrowed  down  to  Isaac's 
line.  Gen.  xvii.  19,  21  ;  xxi.  10,  12.  Then  to  Ja- 
cob's line.  Gen.  xxviii.  14.  Then  to  the  tribe  of 
Judah.  Gen.  xlix.  10.  Then  to  the  seed  of  David. 
Ps.  lxxxix.;  Isa.  xi.;  Ez.  xxxiv.  andxxxvii.;  Hoe. 
iii.     And,  at  last,  to  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  who, 


180  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


holding  the  goblet  in  His  hand,  said  :  "  This  cup  is 
the  New  Covenant  in  my  blood,  which  is  shed  for 
you  and  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Matt, 
xxvi.  28  ;  Luke  xxii.  30  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  25.  And 
since  "the  God  of  peace  had  brought  again  our 
Lord  Jesus  from  the  dead,  through  the  blood  of  the 
Everlasting  Covenant"  (Heb.  xiii.  20),  and  this 
"Mediator  of  the  New  Covenant"*  (Heb.  ix.  15) 
had  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty 
on^high  to  make  intercession  for  believers  (Heb. 
i.  3  ;  Rom.  viii.  34) — "  the  Covenant  of  Circum- 
cision" (Acts  vii.  8),  "  the  First  or  Old  Covenant" 
(Heb.  viii.  T,  13),  with  its  shadows  and  ceremo- 
nies, has  ended,  and  a  new  order  of  things — "  the 
New  Covenant"  (Heb.  viii.  8) — has  been  intro- 
duced. 

This  is  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  It  was,  as  we 
have  seen,  a  "  Covenant  of  Promise"  (Eph.  ii.  12) 
to  the  Fathers,  but  has  been  reduced  to  a  covenant 
of  fact  by  Christ.  It  was  revealed  to  the  Fathers 
through  the  promise  of  Messiah,  but  was  not  actu- 
ally established  until  the  death  of  Christ.  It  was  a 
covenant  whose  head  was  not  Abraham,  but  Christ, 
Enoch,  Noah,  Lot,  and  Melchisedek,  though  they 
were  not  circumcised,  were  as  well  partakers  of  the 
benefits  of  this  covenant,  as  the  circumcised  Abra- 
ham and  his  believing  posterity  ;  and  Abraham 
himself  was  as  well  a  partaker  of  them  before  his 

*  According  to  the  original. 


CIRCUMCISION.  181 


circumcision,  as  after  it.  See  Gen.  xv.  and  Rom. 
iv.  It  was  not  established  with  Abraham  and  his 
carnal  progenity,  but  with  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
which  was  Christ.   See  Gal.  iii.  16,  It. 

The  promise  mentioned  in  Gen.  xii.  1-3*  ought 
to  be  well  distinguished  from  the  Covenant  of  Cir- 

*  That  no  proper  covenant  was  here  established,  is  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  no  federal  transaction  here  occurs.  A  cove- 
nant between  God  and  man  implies  a  mutual  engagement,  con- 
taining mercies  on  God's  part  made  over  to  man,  and  conditions 
on  man's  part  required  of  God.  But  here  it  is  not  said  what 
God  had  done,  nor  what  He  now  was  doing,  but  only  what  He 
would  do  :  "I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will  bless 
thee."  Nor  was  any  condition  required  of  Abraham.  Compare 
Gen.  xvii.  Yet  the  word  covenant  is  also  used  in  an  improper 
sense  to  signify  the  sovereign  decree  or  absolute  promise  of  God, 
respecting  what  He  will  do.  See  Gen.  ix.  10,  11;  Jer.  xxxi.  31- 
35,-  xxxiii.  20,  25  ;  Isa.  lix.  21 ;  Hos.  ii.  13.  It  is  in  this  latter 
signification  and  in  the  language  of  prophecy,  that  the  promises 
occurring  here  and  Gen.  xxii.  18,  are  sometimes,  in  the  Scriptures, 
called  covenants. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  Scriptures  speak  only  of  two  real 
covenants  relating  to  the  salvation  of  man  (see  Gal.  iv.  24),  viz., 
the  First  or  Old  Covenant,  and  the  Second  or  New  Covenant — 
the  Covenant  of  Works  and  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  The  for- 
mer began  at  the  circumcision  of  Abraham  (or  if  you  choose,  at 
the  creation  of  man),  was  renewed  at  the  giving  of  the  law 
through  Moses,  and  ended  at  the  advent  of  our  Saviour  into  the 
world.  The  latter  was  decreed  from  eternity,  promised  through- 
out the  Old  Testament,  established  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
shall  remain  in  all  eternity.  "  The  Covenant  of  Promise''  could 
not  properly  be  called  a  covenant,  until  it  was  publicly  estab- 
lished by  the  death  of  Christ,  and  sealed  by  His  blood.  Hence, 
in  relation  to  the  Mosaic,  it  is  properly  called  the  "New  Cove- 
nant." 

16 


182  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


cuincision,  which  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  xvii.  This 
promise — which  was  renewed  after  the  offering  of 
Isaac,  and  confirmed  by  an  oath  (Gen.  xxii.  18) — 
Abraham  received  twenty-four  years  previous  to  the 
establishment  of  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision.  It 
is,  consequently,  distinguished  from  the  latter  as  to 
the  time  ;  but  likewise,  also,  as  to  its  nature.  Here 
occurs  a  free  promise  concerning  Messiah,  without 
any  mention  of  circumcision  or  any  other  condition 
on  the  part  of  Abraham.  It  was,  therefore,  of  an 
entirely  evangelical  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
the  institution  of  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision 
there  is  no  promise  concerning  Messiah,  but  exter- 
nal conditions  and  severe  threatenings,  from  which 
it  is  evident  that  it  was  a  legal  covenant. 

This  difference  is  also  intimated  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Paul  alludes  to  the  former,  when  he  says, 
Gal.  iii.  8,  "The  Scripture  preached  before  the 
Gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all 
nations  be  blessed."  Further,  he  distinguishes  it 
by  calling  it  "  the  Covenant  of  Promise" — a  name 
distinctly  signifying  its  evangelical  nature.  But, 
on  the  contrary,  he  decidedly  affirms  that  circum- 
cision was  a  part  of  the  law.  See  Rom.  ii.  25 ; 
Gal.  v.  2,  3.  And  Peter,  likewise,  mentions 
circumcision,  as  an  intolerable  yoke  (Acts  xv. 
10),  etc. 

The  promise,  therefore,  by  which  Abraham  has 
been  made  "  the  Father"  of  believers  and  the  "  heir 
of  the  world,*'  and  bv  which  all  believers  in  the 


CIRCUMCISION.  1S3 


whole  world  should  be  blessed  as  the  spiritual  chil- 
dren of  Abraham  and  his  co-heirs,  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision.  Rom.  it. 
9-13.  They  are  as  far  distant  from  each  other,  as 
the  Law  is  distant  from  the  Gospel. 

As  to  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision  especially, 
which  was  renewed  at  Sinai  with  all  Israel,*  it 
may  be  remarked,  that  this  covenant  contained 
only  the  natural  offspring  of  Abraham  and  those 
politically  incorporated  with  them.  The  Lord  in- 
tended, through  this  covenant  and  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tution of  the  law,  partly  to  separate  the  whole 
Israelitish  people  as  a  nation  from  all  other  nations 
in  the  world,  and  for  this  purpose,  to  give  them  a 
separate  country  where  they  could  preserve  their 
nationality  ;  partly  to  instruct  them  with  His  writ- 
ten revelation,  and  to  keep  up  through  them'  an 
unbroken  genealogy  from  Abraham  to  the  promised 
seed,  our  ever  blessed  Saviour,  etc.  But  all  this 
was  destined  to  end  in  Christ. 

Of  this  fact  Jeremiah,  among  others,  prophesies 
thus,  eh.  xxxi.  31-34:  "Behold,  the  days  come, 
saith  the   Lord,  that   I  will  make  a  new  covenant 


*  That  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision  made  with  Abraham, 
•was  identical  with  the  Mosaic  Covenant,  and  that  the  latter  was 
only  a  continuation  and  further  development  of  the  former,  we 
may  learn  from  the  words  of  our  Saviour  in  John  vii.  22,  23, 
where  He  declares  that  the  law  of  circumcision  was  a  part  of 
the  law  of  Moses,  and  that  circumcision  had  originally  been 
given  to  Abraham,  and  had  come  down  from  him  to  Moses. 


184:  CHKISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of 
Judah  :  Not  according  to  the  covenant  that  1  made 
with  their  fathers  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by 
the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ; 
which  my  covenant  they  brake.  But  this  shall  be 
the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Is- 
rael:  After  those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put 
my  law  in  their  imvard  jiarts  and  write  it  in  their 
hearts ;  and  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be 
my  people.  And  they  shall  teach  no  more  every 
man  his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother,  say- 
ing, Know  the  Lord,  for  they  shall  all  know  me, 
from  the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest  of  them, 
saith  the  Lord." 

Hence  it  appears,  that  the  New  Covenant  could 
not  be  a  part  of  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision,  or 
identical  with  it.  For  how  could  it  be  said  that 
the  Lord  would  "make  a  new  covenant  with  the 
house  of  Israel,  not  according  to  the  covenant  that 
He  made  with  their  fathers,"  if,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Pedobaptists,  it  had  already  been 
established  with  Abraham  and  all  his  posterity, 
and  sealed  with  the  seal  of  circumcision  ?  If  the 
New  Covenant  had  already  existed  before  Christ, 
how  could  "  a  place  have  been  sought  for  the 
second  ?"  Heb.  viii.  7. 

Again,  it  is  evident  that  the  Covenant  of  Circum- 
cision was  abolished  in  the  establishing  of  the  New. 
In  Heb.  viii.  6-13,  where  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah 
mentioned  above,  is  quoted  and  explained,  this  is 


CIRCUMCISION.  185 


expressly  taught :  "  If  that  first  covenant  had  been 
faultless,  then  should  no  place  have  been  sought 
for  the  second.  In  that  He  saith,  A  new  covenant, 
He  hath  made  the  first  old.  Xow  that  which 
decayeth  and  waxeth  old,  is  ready  to  vanish  away." 
The  same  we  may  learn  from  Heb.  vii.  12,  where  it 
is  said  that  "the  law"  and  "the  priesthood"  were 
changed.  Further,  in  ch.  xii.  27,  the  entire  old 
dispensation  is  represented  as  shaken  in  its  founda- 
tions and  removed:  "And  this  word,  Yet  once 
more,  signifieth  the  removing  of  those  things  that 
are  shaken,  as  of  things  that  are  made,  that  those 
things  which  cannot  be  shaken  may  remain."  The 
things  that  cannot  be  shaken  and  removed,  are 
the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  and  the 
New  Covenant :  "  Wherefore  we,  receiving  a  king- 
dom which  cannot  be  moved,"  etc.,  v.  28. 

From  all  this,  and  from  many  other  passages  of 
Scripture,*  we  may  conclude,  that  the  old  Patri- 

*  See,  for  example,  Eph.  ii.  15,  where  it  is  said  that  Christ 
has  abolished  the  law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances, 
for  to  make  in  himself  of  twain  (that  is.  of  Jews  and  heathen) 
one  new  man.  On  this,  H.  A.  W.  Meyer  writes:  "The  Mosaic 
institution  of  the  law,  an  such,  and  not  only  from  a  certain  side, 
has  ended  in  Christ;  the  shadow  has  receded  for  the  body."  Col. 
ii.  17.  .  .  .'*  This  one  [man]  is  now  neither  Jew  nor  Greek — what 
they  both  (out  of  whom  the  one  has  been  made)  previously  were 
— but  both  the  parts  have  laid  aside  their  former  religious  and 
moral  constitution,  and  without  any  further  difference,  received 
the  entirely  u>-ro  being  on  the  ground  of  Christian  faith." — Com- 
mentary on  the  passage. 

See  also  Col.  ii.  S-12;  Acts  sv.  1-30  (passages  to  which  we 

16* 


186  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


archal  and  Mosaic  dispensation  is  abolished,  and 
that  nothing  that  belonged  to  that  dispensation  is 
obligatory  under  the  new  dispensation  of  grace, 
unless  re-established  and  sanctioned  by  the  New 
Testament.  Whence  it  follows,  that  in  looking  for 
members  of  the  church  of  Christ,  we  are  not  to  seek 
them  amongst  the  Patriarchs  and  Jews,  but  to  in- 
quire of  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 

But  who  are  included  in  the  Xew  Covenant  and 
entitled  to  enjoy  its  peculiar  privileges,  we  clearly 
learn  from  the  above  passages.  Jer.  xxxi.  31-34, 
and  Heb.  viii.  10,  11.  Here  we  see,  that  while  the 
Lord  in  the  Old  Testament  kept  covenant  also  with 
the  ungodly,  yet  from  the  time  of  our  Saviour  He 
keeps  covenant  only  with  the  regenerate,  and  says 
of  the  unregenerate  children  of  believers,  as  He  said 
in  olden  time  of  the  carnal  progeny  of  "faithful 
Abraham  :"  "  Cast  out  the  bondwoman  and  her 
son."  Gen.  xxi.  10;  Gal.  iv.  22-31.  For  of  those 
who  are  included  in  the  New  Covenant,  it  is  said, 
that  they  have  the  law  of  God  written  in  their 
heart,  and  that  they  all,  from  the  least  unto  the 
greatest,  know  the  Lord,  so  that  no  one  need  to 
teach  them,  saying,  Know  the  Lord.  Can  this  be 
said  of  new-born  children  ?  Do  they  know  the  Lord, 
so  that  no  one  need  to  teach  them,  as  soon  as  they 

will  further  refer  or  return);  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 
It  is  a  matter  of  astonishment,  that  any  man  can  read  this  latter 
Epistle,  and  yet  seriously  affirm  that  the  covenant  of  circuruei- 
eion  is  still  in  force,  and  is  the  covenant  of  grace. 


CIRCUMCISION'.  1ST 

arc  capable  of  instruction,  to  know  the  Lord  ?  If 
not,  there  are  no  new-born  children  included  in  this 
covenant.*  The  doctrine  that  the  Lord  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  well  as  in  the  Old,  keeps  covenant 
with  the  unconscious  infants  of  believers,  is,  there- 
fore, directly  opposed  to  the  clear  word  of  the  Lord. 
Infants  of  Gentile  believers  are  neither  of  Abraham's 
natural  seed,  nor  of  his  spiritual  seed  ;  for  it  is  only 
"  believers"  who  are  recognized  as  his  spiritual  seed. 
The  children  of  believers  must  themselves  become  be- 
lievers— possess  the  same  faith  with  their  parents,  and 


*  On  the  relation  of  infants  to  the  New  Covenant,  Dr.  A.  Car- 
son writes:  "Infants  are  not  saved  by  the  New  Covenant,  and 
therefore  they  cannot  be  connected  with  it,  in  any  view  that 
represents  them  as  interested  in  it.  It  is  a  vulgar  mistake  of 
theologians  to  consider,  that  they  must  be  saved  by  the  Xew 
Covenant.  There  is  no  such  doctrine  exhibited  in  any  part  of 
the  book  of  God.  Infants  must  be  saved  as  sinners,  and  saved 
through  the  blood  of  Christ;  but  there  was  no  necessity  to  give 
a  covenant  to  man  to  ratify  this.  Whether  all  infants  dying  in 
infancy  are  saved,  or  only  some  infants,  they  are  saved  just  as 
adults,  as  to  the  price  of  redemption,  and  as  to  the  sanctification 
of  their  nature.  But  they  are  not  saved  as  adults.  Inj  the  truth 
believed.  That  sacrifice  which  is  the  ground  of  the  Xew  Cove- 
nant, is  the  salvation  of  saved  infants:  but  there  is  no  part  of 
the  word  of  God  that  intimates  that  it  is  through  faith  in  that 
sacrifice.  God,  who  applies  that  sacrifice  to  adults  only  through 
faith,  can  apply  it  to  dying  infants  without  faith — for  faith  is  no 
merit  more  than  works.  .  .  .  Who  is  he  that  will  undertake  to 
put  a  name  (another's  name)  into  God's  covenant?  What  anti- 
christ will  dare  to  take  the  throne  of  Jesus,  and  put  a  name  into 
the  Gospel  grant  ?"— "  Baptism  in  its  Mode  and  Subject:"  Phila- 
delphia, IS  53,  p.  2 J 5. 


188  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


be  Christ's  genuine  disciples,  in  order  to  be  included 
in  the  New   Covenant.     "  Abraham  believed  God, 

and  it  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteousness. 
Know  ye,  therefore,  that  they  which  are  of  faith, 
the  same  (and  no  others)  are  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham. So  then  they  which  are  of  faith  are  blessed 
with  faithful  Abraham."  Gal.  iii.  6-9. 

Against  the  doctrine  that  the  Covenant  of  Cir- 
cumcision is  now  abolished,  it  does  not  militate 
that  it  is  called  "an  everlasting  covenant."  Gen. 
xvii.  7.  For  the  word  "  everlasting"  here  does  not 
signify  the  endless  duration  of  this  covenant,  but 
only  its  perpetual  and  unalterable  force,  until  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah.  See  Deut.  xviii.  15  ;  comp. 
Acts  iii.  22  ;  vii.  37.  In  this  sense  the  word  occurs 
also  in  Ex.  xl.  15,  where  it  is  said  of  Aarou  and 
his  sons,  that  their  "  anointing  should  be  an  ever- 
lasting priesthood  throughout  their  generations." 
That  is,  this  should  be  the  perpetual  and  unalter- 
able order,  so  long  as  the  Aaronic  priesthood  should 
continue.  But  no  one  doubts  that  this  priesthood 
has  now  been  wholly  superceded  by  that  of  Christ. 

As  to  the  second  ground — viz.,  that  "circum- 
cision was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,"  etc. — 
it  may  be  remarked  : 

The  only  passage  in  Scripture  where  circumcision 
is  called  a  seal,  is  Rom.  iv.  11,  where  it  is  said  that 
Abraham  "  received  the  sign  of  circumcision  as  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had, 
yet  being  uncircumcised."     But  this  does  not  prove 


CIRCUMCISION.  189 


that  circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  to  all  his  jwsterity.  It  is,  in- 
deed, said  that  circumcision  was  a  token  of  the  cove- 
nant between  God  and  the  seed  of  Abraham,  Gen. 
xvii.  11.  But  a  seal  and  a  token  are  two  different 
things.  A  seal  ratifies  a  thing  which  was  not  be- 
fore valid  ;  a  token  is  only  a  visible  proof  that  some 
other  thing  already  exists.  Circumcision,  there- 
fore, was  no  seal  that  ratified  and  gave  a  full  valid- 
ity to  the  covenant  between  God  and  the  posterity 
of  Abraham  ;  but  only  a  token  that  such  a  covenant 
existed. 

Again,  that  circumcision  was  not  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that,  such 
were  circumcised  as  had  no  part  in  the  promises 
given  to  Abraham,  and  such  were  left  uncircum- 
cised  as  had  a  part  therein.  It  cannot  be  supposed 
that  all  the  descendants  of  Abraham  were  partakers 
of  the  promises  given  to  Abraham,  either  spiritual 
or  temporal.  Ishmael  and  the  children  of  Keturah 
were  included  in  this  compact :  "  This  is  my  cove- 
nant, which  ye  shall  keep,  between  me  and  you,  and 
thy  seed  after  thee  ;  every  man-child  among  you 
shall  be  circumcised."  Gen.  xvii.  10.  Yet,  Ishmael 
was  first  cast  out  from  the  participation  of  the  pro- 
mises of  this  covenant.  And  then  the  children  of 
Abraham  by  Keturah,  whom  "  he  sent  away  from 
Isaac  his  son  (while  he  yet  lived)  unto  the  east 
country."  Gen.  xxv.  6.  Now  if  circumcision  had 
been  the  seal  of  participation  in  the  Abrahamic 


190  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM 


covenant  and  all  its  blessings,  Gcd  would  either 
have  excepted  these  from  the  command  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed  to  circumcise  "  every  man-child,"  or 
else  He  must  have  given  the  seal,  but  withdrawn 
the  reality  sealed  by  it. 

Nor  can  it  be  supposed,  that  all  slaves  "  born  in 
the  house,  or  bought  with  money,"  who,  during  the 
lapse  of  time,  belonged  to  the  people  of  Israel,  had 
the  faith  of  Abraham,  and  thus,  as  the  spiritual  seed 
of  Abraham,  were  partakers  of  his  blessing.  Yet 
they  were,  according  to  Divine  direction,  to  be  cir- 
cumcised even  against  their  will.  Gen.  xvii.  12,  13. 
Circumcision  could  not  be,  to  ail  these,  a  seal 
of  the  participation  iu  the  blessings  of  the  covenant 
of  grace.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  many  women  in  Israel  had  the  faith 
of  Abraham.  Yet  no  woman  was  circumcised. 
Now,  if  circumcision  had  been  the  seal  of  partici- 
pation in  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
would  the  Lord  have  withdrawn  this  seal  from  be- 
lieving women  in  Israel  ?  Nothing  proves  more 
decidedly  that  circumcision  could  not  be  the  seal 
of  participation  in  the  blessing  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  than  that  the  whole  female  sex — that  is  to 
say,  one-half  of  "the  seed  of  Abraham" — were  not 
subject  to  circumcision. 

The  whole  argument  from  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant, in  support  of  infant  baptism,  rests  properly 
on  the  third  and  last  ground — that  "  baptism  has 
come  in  the  room  of  circumcision,''  etc.     We  might, 


CIRCUMCISION.  191 


therefore,  have  left  the  two  preceding  grounds  aside, 
had  we  not  deemed  it  necessary  to  try  every  means 
to  dispel  the  mist  that  has  gathered  around  the 
Abrahamic  Covenant  in  the  minds  of  most  Pedo- 
baptists,  and  rendered  them  unable  to  see  its  true 
nut  ure. 

Now,  finally,  with  respect  to  the  last  ground,  it 
may  be  remarked,  that  no  position  can  be  more 
gratuitous  and  false  than  this.  For  first  it  is  decid- 
edly opposed  to  the  lav:  of  circumcision.  This 
law  was  a  positive  law,  in  distinction  from  the 
moral  law.  The  distinction  between  positive  and 
moral  la.ws,  it  is  of  the  highest  moment  to  know  and 
observe  in  regard  to  our  present  question.  We 
wish,  therefore,  in  the  first  place,  to  make  some  re- 
marks concerning  this  distinction. 

u Moral  precepts,*'  says  Bishop  Butler,  "are 
precepts  the  reason  of  which  we  see  ;  positive  pre- 
cepts are  precepts  the  reason  of  which  we  do  not 
see.  Moral  duties  arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the 
case  itself,  prior  to  external  command  ;  but  posi- 
tive duties  do  not  arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the 
case,  but  from  external  command  ;  nor  would  they 
be  duties  at  all  were  it  not  for  such  command, 
received  from  Him  whose  creatures  and  subjects  we 
are."* 

The  following  examples  may  serve  to  spread  light 
on  the  nature  of  positive  laws. 

*  "Analogy,"  part  2,  ch.  1. 


192  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


Adam  and  Eve  were,  from  their  creation,  nnder 
moral  obligation  to  love  and  serve  God;  but  they 
were  not  under  positive  law  till  God  said,  "  Of  the  fruit 
of  the  tree  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  garden,  ye 
shall  not  eat  of  it,  neither  shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye 
die."  Gen.  iii.  3.  Adam  and  Eve  violated  this 
positive  law,  and  brought  by  that  means  the  curse, 
and  death  over  all  their  posterity. 

The  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  Paschal  Lamb 
on  the  door  posts  was  an  act  in  itself  indifferent. 
But  the  positive  command  of  God  clothed  it  with 
an  importance  on  which  not  only  life  or  death 
depended,  but  in  the  performance  or  neglect  of 
which  was  implied  personal  innocence  or  guilt. 

God  had  decreed  that  the  sons  of  Kohath,  who 
were  Levites,  should  bear  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
on  their  shoulders  whenever  it  was  moved,  and  that 
they  should  not  touch  it,  lest  they  died.  Here  was 
a  positive  statute,  both  mandatory  and  prohibitory. 
But  when  David  removed  the  Ark  from  Gibeah  to 
the  house  of  Obed-edom,  the  positive  command  was 
violated  by  placing  it  on  "a  new  cart."  And  Uz- 
zah,  who  drove  the  cart,  "put  forth  his  hand  to  the 
Ark  of  God"  to  steady  it.  But  "  the  anger  of  the 
Lord  was  kindled  against  Uzzah,  and  God  smote 
him  there  for  his  error  ;  and  there  he  died  by  the 
Ark  of  God."  2  Sam.  vi. 

Removing  the  Ark  on  a  cart,  and  putting  forth 
a  hand  to  steady  it,  were  palpable  violations  of  the 


CIRCUMCISION.  193 


lavr ;  and  God  vindicated  His  authority  in  a  sum- 
mary manner. 

Hence,  we  may  clearly  perceive  the  nature  of  a 
positive  law.  It  rests  entirely  on  the  distinctly  and 
decidedly  expressed  will  of  God,  and  requires  a 
punctual  obedience,  without  assigning  any  reason 
or  motive  for  obedience. 

Now,  such  a  law  was  the  law  of  circumcision. 
Circumcision  was  a  duty  which  could  not  be  inferred 
from  a  general  moral  lav: — it  was  a  duty  which 
could  be  known  only  from  a  distinct  and  especial 
prescription.  It  was  no  duty  before  it  was  ex- 
pressly commanded,  nor  to  those  on  whom  it  was 
not  expressly  enjoined.  But  since  a  positive  law 
for  it  was  given  to  the  Hebrews,  this  law  must  be 
obeyed  according  to  its  letter,  so  long  as  it  was 
valid.  The  law  did  not  leave  the  least  liberty  to 
"add"  or  to  "take  away;"  and  on  the  punctual 
obedience  to  it  depended,  whether  those  subjected 
to  it  should  be  "cut  off  from  the  people,"  or  not. 
Gen.  xvii.  14. 

The  position  that  baptism  has  taken  the  place 
of  circumcision — so  that  "baptism  in  the  Xew  Tes- 
tament is  what  circumcision  was  in  the  Old,"  and  that 
the  Covenant  of  Circumcision  still  is  in  force,  but 
that  its  seal  has  been  altered — is,  consequently, 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  law  of  Circumcision. 
This  law  forbids  explicitly  the  observance  of  any 
other  rite  than  circumcision,  as  its  token,  while  it 
remains.     "  Thou    shalt  keep  my  covenant  there- 


194  CHRISTIAN   BAFTI3M". 


fore — this  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep 
■ — every  man-child  among  you  shall  be  circum- 
cised. And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your 
foreskin,  and  my  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh 
for  an  everlasting  covenant.  And  the  uncir- 
cumcised  man-child,  whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is 
not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his 
people  ;  he  hath  broken  my  covenant."  Gen.  xvii. 
9-14. 

How  in  the  face  of  this  express  law  can  any  man 
affirm  that  the  seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision 
is  altered,  but  that  the  covenant  itself  remains  ?  Is 
not  circumcision  declared  to  be  as  everlastingly 
binding,  as  the  covenant  itself?  And  is  it  not  ex- 
pressly said  that  the  man-child  whose  foreskin  is  not 
circumcised,  has  broken  the  covenant,  and  is  there- 
fore to  be  cut  off  from  the  people  ?  Therefore, 
there  is  here  no  possibility  of  a  substitute  under  the 
covenant.  The  law  of  circumcision  is  either  to  be 
kept  literally  and  punctiliously,  or  it  must  have 
been  totally  abolished,  without  having  any  thing  in- 
troduced in  its  place  to  be  observed  on  the  same 
principles. 

But  let  us  now  observe  what  liberties  the  Pedo- 
baptists  have  taken  with  this  covenant  and  law  of 
circumcision,  while  they  claim  that  it  is  still  in  force 
— that  they  are  living  under  it,  and  enjoying  its 
privileges. 

They  have  greatly  extended  it.  The  covenant, 
by  its  very  terms,  is  limited  to  Abraham  and  hi3 


CIRCUMCISION.  195 


natural  seed,  and  to  such  persons  from  other  na- 
tions as  should  be  incorporated  into  the  family  or 
nation  by  purchase,  etc.  But  they  have  extended 
it  to  Christians  among  all  nations  and  their  natural 
seed  ;  and  they  have  made  this  extension  not  only 
without  any  thing  like  a  Divine  warrant  for  it,  but 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  decision  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts.  xv.  18. 

They  have  changed  its  appointed  rite  from  cir- 
cumcision to  baptism,  or  more  generally,  to  sprink- 
ling or  pouring  a  little  water  iu  the  face  of  the 
subject. 

They  have  changed  the  subjects  of  the  rite.  The 
covenant  limits  the  rite  to  males — they  have  ex- 
tended their  substitute  to  females.  The  covenant 
requires  that  its  rite  shall  be  administered  to  chil- 
dren at  eight  days  old  ;  they  administer  their  sub- 
stitute to  children  from  the  natal  hour  up  to  any 
ac;e  within  the  limits  of  minoritv. 

Such  changes  the  Pedobaptists  have  made  with 
the  positive  law  of  circumcision,  in  order,  as  they 
suppose,  to  secure  to  their  infants  a  part  in  the 
blessings  of  the  Covenant.  But  we  ask:  Do  not 
Pedobaptists  by  this  conduct  condemn  themselves  ? 
For  if  that  Covenant  be  now  binding,  why  should 
they  comply  with  the  law  of  circumcision  more  in 
one  respect  than  in  another?  Where  has  God 
released  them  from  the  obligation  to  keep  the  whole 
law  of  circumcision  ?  Or  did  ever  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham approve  of  a  mutilated  obedience  ? 


196  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


In  the  second  place,  the  position  that  baptism 
has  been  substituted  for  circumcision,  has  no  foun- 
dation in  the  New  Testament.  The  only  passage 
Pedobaptists  have  been  able,  with  any  plausibility, 
to  quote  in  support  of  this  position,  is  Col.  ii.  11, 
12.  But  this  passage,  so  far  from  containing  any 
evidence  in  favor  of  the  Pedobaptist  view,  on  the 
other  hand,  proves  the  very  contrary.  Let  us  hear 
the  passage  speak  for  itself. 

"In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  cir- 
cumcision made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  :  by  the  circumcision 
of  Christ,  buried  with  Him  in  baptism  ;  wherein 
also  ye  are  risen  with  Him  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  Him  from  the 
dead."  Col.  ii.  11. 

These  verses,  taken  in  connection  with  the  pre- 
ceding and  following,  prove,  in  the  first  place,  that 
Christians  have  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  the  Cove- 
nant of  Circumcision.  "  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil 
you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the 
tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,* 
and  not  after  Christ.     And  ye  are  complete  in  Him, 


*  "This  expression  in  itself  comprises  the  ritual  observances 
of  Judaism  and  heathenism." — II.  A.  W.  Meyer's  Commentary 
on  the  passage. 

"What  is  meant  by  the  phrase — elements  of  the  world? 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  means  ceremonies.  For  he  imme- 
diately afterward  adduces  one  instance  by  way  of  example — 
circumcision." — Calvin's  Commentary  on  the  passage. 


CIRCUMCISION".  197 


in  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised And  you, 

being  dead  in  your  sins  and  the  uncircumcisiun  of 
your  flesh,  hath  He  quickened  together  with  Him — 
blotting  out  the  handwriting*  of  ordinances  that 
was  against  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing 
it  to  His  cross." 

Here  we  find  that  Faul  had  to  contend  with  false 
teachers,  who  taught  that  circumcision,  together 
with  many  other  "rudiments  of  the  world,"  or 
Jewish  ceremonies,  were  necessary  to  be  observed 
by  Christians.  In  order  to  meet  these,  he  first 
teaches  that  Christians  had  no  need  to  observe  the 
rudiments  of  the  world,  or  the  Jewish  ceremonies, 
etc.,  thereby  to  be  filled  with  divine  wisdom  and 
grace.  "For  in  Christ,"  he  says,  "dwelleth  all  the 
fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily."  "  And  ye  are,"  he 
adds,  "complete  in  Him,"  as  united  with  Him  ;  so 
that  ye  need  not  now  first  be  made  complete  by 
means  of  worshiping  the  angels  (u.  18),  and  observ- 
ing the  gorgeous  ceremonies  of  Judaism.  And, 
especially,  ye  need  not  observe  the  Jewish  circum- 
cision;  for  "ye  are"  already  "circumcised"  with  a 
circumcision  far  better  than  the  Jewish,  viz.,  with 
"the  circumcision  of  Christ."  This  circumcision, 
he  further  adds,  is  "  not  made  with  hands"  (Rom. 

*  "Handwriting.  Thus  the  Mosaic  law  is  characterized.  .  .  . 
The  law  is  to  be  understood  as  an  all-comprehending  whole, 
and  limitations  to  the  ceremonial  law,  or  the  moral  law,  are  en- 
tirely opposed  to  the  context  and  the  doctrine  of  Paul.*' — H.  A. 
W.  Meyer's  Commentary  oa  the  passage. 

19 


198  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


ii.  29),  as  the  Jewish,  but  is  an  invisible,  spiritual 
circumcision  of  the  heart  (Deut.  xxx.  6),  effected 
without  interposition  of  man.  It  is  not  only  an 
outward  separation  of  a  little  part  of  your  flesh,  but 
a  putting  off  the  whole  "  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh,  the  body  of  sin."  Rom.  vi.  6.  But  ye  have 
not  only,  by  this  spiritual  circumcision,  put  off  the 
body  of  sin,  as  one  puts  off  his  natural  body  in 
death  ;  but  as  burial  naturally  is  consequent  upon 
death,  so  this  body  of  sin  has  also  been  buried  by 
your  being  "  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism."  But 
still  more — ye  are  also  "  risen  with  Him,  through 
the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God."  Thus  ye  have 
already  in  Christ  all  that  is  needful  and  desirable. 
"Wherefore,  if  ye,"  in  this  way,  "be  dead  with 
Christ  from  the  rudiments  of  the  world,"  and  live 
a  new  life — as  in  a  new  world — "  with  Christ  in 
God;"  "why,  as  though  living  in  the  world,  are 
ye  subject  to  ordinances"  (u.  20),  which  are  now 
blotted  out,  taken  out  of  the  way,  and  nailed  to  the 
cross  of  Christ  ? 

That  the  Apostle,  by  this  reasoning,  declares  that 
Christians  are  not  "subject"  to  the  law  of  circum- 
cision, is  evident.  But  if  this  reasoning  be  conclu- 
sive in  showing  that  the  rite  of  circumcision  is 
unnecessary,  it  is  conclusive,  also,  against  the  sup- 
position, that  any  other  rite  has  come  in  the  room 
of  circumcision,  and  is  administered  on  the  same 
grounds,  or  that  circumcision  in  substance  continues 


CIRCUMCISION.  199 


in  the  Christian  church,  having  only  been  changed 
in  form. 

In  order  to  prove  that  baptism  has  come  in  the 
room  of  circumcision,  Pedobaptists  assert  that  the 
Apostle  in  this  passage  represents  the  circumcision 
of  the  Xew  Testament  as  effected  in  and  by  means 
of  baptism.  But  our  text  does  not  furnish  any 
ground  either  for  their  assertion  or  their  argument. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  the  Apostle  does  not  say 
that  the  Colossians  were  circumcised  "  with  the  cir- 
cumcision of  Christ,"  in  that  they  were  buried  with 
Him  by  baptism,  as  some  falsely  explain  the  pas- 
sage ;  but  according  to  the  original  and  the  English 
version,  he  expresses  himself  thus  :  "  In  whom  also 
ye  are  circumcised,  etc.,  buried  with  Him  in  bap- 
tism, wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  Him  through 
faith,"  etc.  The  Apostle  here  reminds  the  Colos- 
sians, as  in  Rom.  vi.  3-11  the  Romans,  of  three 
important  facts  which  had  taken  place  with  them. 
They  had  been  (1)  dead  ("in  putting  off  the  body 
of  the  sins  of  the  flesh"' — "baptized  into  His  death," 
Rom.  vi.  3.);  (2)  buried  ("buried  with  Him  in 
baptism" — "buried  with  Him  by  baptism,"  Rom. 
vi.  4) ;  (3)  ruen  from  the  dead  ("  wherein  also  ye 
are  risen  with  Him" — "that  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  up  from  the  dead,  so  we  also  should  walk  in 
newness  of  life" — "likewise  reckon  ye  also  your- 
selves to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto 
God."  Rom.  vi.  4,  11.)  The  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion in  and  from  baptism,  are  not  here  represented 


200  .CHRISTIAN  BArTISM 


as  the  means  by  which  the  circumcision  of  Christ 
had  been  effected,  but  as  consequences  from  this 
circumcision,  which  consisted  "in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  flesh"  (''circumcised — in  putting  off 
the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh").  The  Colossians 
were  circumcised  without  hands — in  the  circumcision 
of  Christ — in  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  in  the 
spirit  (Rom.  ii.  29) — in  the  putting  off  of  the  body 
of  sin  through  faith  ;  and  the  remains  of  this  cir- 
cumcision they  had  committed  to  the  watery  grave, 
from  which  they  had  risen  again  to  walk  in  newness 
of  life. 

If  the  Apostle  had  meant  to  say,  that  the  Colos- 
sians had  been  circumcised  with  the  circumcision 
of  Christ,  effected  by  a  burial  with  Christ  in  bap- 
tism, he  would  have  taught  that  this  circumcision  had 
been  made  by  an  outward  act,  since  baptism  cannot 
take  place  without  hands.  But  immediately  before, 
he  declares  that  this  circumcision  had  not  taken 
place  by  means  of  an  outward  act :  "Ye  are  circum- 
cised with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands." 
Can  we  charge  the  Apostle  with  such  a  self-contra- 
diction ? 

The  contrast  indicated  in  our  passage,  is  evidently 
not  between  two  external  rites,  one  of  which  may 
be  disregarded  since  the  other  has  been  introduced 
in  its  stead,  but  between  the  outward  circumcision 
and  "the  circumcision  of  heart,  in  the  spirit." 
That  which  is  made  with  hands,  the  Jewish  circum- 
cision, is  not  required,  because  that  which  is  made 


CIRCUMCISION.  201 


without  hands,  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  has  been 
experienced.   Comp.  Eph.  ii.  11  ;  Phil.  iii.  3. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  if  it  could  be  proved 
that  the  Colossiana  had  experienced  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ  in  and  by  means  of  baptism,  that 
would  not  be  an}'  evidence  that  baptism  had  come 
in  the  room  of  circumcision.  It  would  only  prove, 
that  Christians  are  delivered  from  circumcision  as  a 
yoke  of  bondage  (Acts  xv.  10),  because  they  had 
received  baptism  as  a  far  more  significant  evangelical 
ordinance.  But  it  could  not  be  any  evidence  that 
baptism  is  to  be  performed  on  the  same  principles 
as  circumcision.  We  make  no  objection  to  the  sen- 
timent that  there  is  in  some  respects  a  similarity 
between  baptism  and  circumcision.*  But  this  does 
as  little  prove  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  room 
of  circumcision,  as  the  fact  that  there  was  a  simi- 
larity between  the  ark  of  Noah  and  baptism  (1  Pet. 
iii.  21)  proves  that  the  latter  has  come  in  the  place 
of  the  former.  With  all  the  circumstantial  simi- 
larity that  may  exist  between  the  two  ordinances, 
they  differ  as  essentially  as  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
and  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision. 

Instead  of  proving  that  circumcision  in  the  New 
Testament  continues  to  be  valid  under  the  form  of 
baptism,  the  passage,  as  well  as  the  similar  one  in 

*  For  example,  as  circumcision,  in  the  Old  Testament,  be- 
longed to  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham,  by  virtue  of  fleshly 
birth,  so,  in  the  New  Testament,  baptism  belongs  to  his  spiritual 
eeed,  by  virtue  of  regeneration  through  faith. 

19* 


202  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


Rom.  vi.  3-11,  clearly  intimates  that  infant  baptism 
did  not  exist  in  the  apostolic  churches.  For  all 
baptized  in  Colosse  and  Rome  are  represented  as 
risen  with  Christ  from  the  grave  of  baptism  "  through 
faith,"  in  order  immediately  after  baptism  to  "walk 
in  newness  of  life."  And  as  this  cannot  apply  to 
infants,  no  such  were  baptized  in  these  churches, 
and,  consequently,  none  in  the  other  apostolic 
churches.  See  further,  concerning  Horn  vi.  3,  the 
note,  p.  133. 

If  baptism  were  a  substitute  for  circumcision, 
something  clear  and  unambiguous  must  have  been 
said  about  it  in  the  Xew  Testament.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  church,  as  they  are  represented  in  the 
Acts  and  Epistles,  were  such  as  to  render  silence 
in  regard  to  such  a  fact  as  this,  ou  the  part  of  the 
Apostles,  absolutely  impossible.  There  was  a  schism 
among  the  Christians  on  this  very  question — whether 
Gentile  Christians  were  bound  to  observe  circum- 
cision, or  not — a  schism  which  would  have  been 
healed  by  just  insisting  that  baptism  had  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision. 

If  this  were  so,  Paul  could  not  have  failed  to 
mention  it  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  among 
whom  circumcision  was  strongly  urged  as  necessary 
to  salvation,  just  as  many  Pedobaptists  in  our  time 
urge  infant  baptism  as  necessary  to  salvation.  Xow, 
if  baptism  held  the  place  of  circumcision,  as  the 
"seal"  of  the  covenant,  the  covenant  itself  remain- 
ing in  full  force,  the  controversy  would  easily  have 


CIRCUMCISION.  203 


been  settled  by  the  simple  remark,  on  the  part  of 
the  Apostle,  that  Gentile  Christians  had  no  need 
of  being  circumcised,  since  they  had  received  bap- 
tism, which  in  the  New  Testament  had  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision.  For  who  could,  in  that  case, 
have  contended  that  those  who  had  been  baptized 
must  also  be  circumcised?  Who  would  have 
thought  of  two  "  seals,"  at  the  same  time,  of  the  same 
covenant  ?  But  there  is  not  a  word  intimating  any 
such  thing,  while  every  thing  in  this  Epistle  makes 
against  it. 

If  it  were  so,  moreover,  something  would  neces- 
sarily have  been  mentioned  about  it  in  the  Apostolic 
Council  at  Jerusalem.  Acts  xv.  We  find  there, 
that  when  some  zealously  urged  that  baptized  Gen- 
tile Christians  could  not  be  saved  unless  they  were 
circumcised,  a  council  was  held  at  Jerusalem  by  the 
Apostles  and  the  church,  "to  consider  of  this  mat- 
ter." Xow,  if  it  had  been  the  known  appointment 
of  Christ  that  baptism  had  taken  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision, and,  consequently,  the  Gentile  Christians 
already  had  received  baptism  instead  of  circum- 
cision, would  it  not  have  been  the  imperative  duty 
of  the  Apostles  to  inform  Christians  of  such  a  fact, 
especially  as  "  much  debate  had  arisen''  at  the 
Council  concerning  "this  matter."  But  though 
Petrr,  on  the  ground  of  his  own  experience  of  the 
fact  that  God  had  "  purified"  even  the  hearts  of 
uncircumciaed  Gentiles  through  faith,  argues  that 
they  ought  not  to  impose  the  yoke  of  the  law  and 


204  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


circumcision  on  Gentile  Christians ;  yet  he  makes 
no  mention  of  baptism  having  come  in  the  place  of 
circumcision,  and  thus  rendered  it  superfluous.  Xor 
does  James,  after  hearing  the  experience  of  Peter 
related,  make  any  mention  of  it,  while  he  lays  down 
this  as  his  decided  judgment,  that  they  should  not  • 
"trouble  them  which  from  among  the  Gentiles  have 
turned  to  God,"  with  keeping  the  law  and  circum- 
cision. How  needful  would  it  not  here  have  been 
to  add  the  plain  reason,  that  since  baptism  now  was 
the  appointed  seal  of  the  covenant  instead  of  circum- 
cision, to  impose  circumcision  upon  them  would  be 
inconsistent  and  absurd.  Likewise  in  the  declara- 
tion given  by  the  Apostles,  the  elders,  and  the 
whole  church  in  common — together  with  "the  Holy 
Ghost" — to  the  Christians  at  Antioch,  there  is  not 
the  least  intimation  that  they  considered  baptism  a3 
a  substitute  for  circumcision,  though  they  expressly 
declared  that  they  needed  not  observe  circumcision. 
Thus  we  here  see  circumcision  for  Gentile  Chris- 
tians expressly  abolished,  but  nothing  proposed  in 
its  room.* 

*  That  circumcision  is  of  right  abolished  also  for  Jewish 
Christians,  is  clear  from  what  we  already  have  learned.  1  Cor. 
vii.  19.  The  "priesthood"  and  "law"  are  "changed,"  not  for  a 
part  of  Christ's  church  only,  but  for  the  whole  (Heb.  vii.  12 — see 
pp.  1S4-1S6);  consequently,  the  law  of  circumcision  which  was 
a  part  of  the  Mosaic  law,  must  also  have  been  changed  for  the 
whole  church.  Christ  has  "abolished"  the  whole  laic,  and  made 
of  the  two.  Jews  and  Gentiles,  not  an  old  man,  retaining  each  a 
peculiar  church  constitution,  but  a  " neic  man"  (Eph.  ii.  11— IS, 


CIBCUMCISION.  205 


Against  the  assertion  that  baptism  has  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision,  we  have,  also,  a  decisive  argu- 
ment in  Acts  xxi.  20,  21,  25.  Here  James  and  the 
elders  at  Jerusalem,  say  to  Paul,  M  Thou  seest,  bro- 
ther, how  many  thousands  of  Jews  there  are  which 
believe,  and  they  are  all  zealous  of  the  law.  And 
they  are  informed  of  thee,  that  thou  teaehest  all 
the  Jews  which  are  among  the  Gentiles  to  forsake 
Moses,  saying  that  they  ought  not  to  circumcise 
their  children,  neither  to  walk  after  the  customs. 
As  touching  the  Gentiles  which  believe,  we  have 
written  and  concluded  that  they  observe  no  scjch 
thing."  But  we  ask,  did  they  not  teach  the  Gen- 
tiles to  observe  baptism,  which  according  to  Pedo- 

see  p.  135,  tho  note),  -who  was  no  more   -'Jew  or   Greek,"  but 
"one  in  Christ  Jesus,"  etc.   Gal.  iii.  26-29. 

The  fact  that  the  Jewish  converts  practiced  circumcision  in 
the  apostolic  age,  does  not  affect  this  argument.  There  were 
many  reasons  why  the  Jewish  converts  did  not  at  once  forsake 
their  old  ritual.  Under  the  circumstances  this  was  hardly  to  be 
expected.  The  Apostles  themselves  were  full  of  Jewish  preju- 
dices when  they  began  their  work,  and  it  was  not  without  much 
instruction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  added  to  much  study  and  obser- 
vation, that  they  were  able  to  surmount  them  (see,  for  instance, 
Acts  x.) ;  could  their  converts,  without  those  advantages,  be  ex- 
pected at  once  to  rise  above  such  prejudices?  The  Gospel  day 
dawned  with  the  ministry  of  John.  And  as  the  morning  twi- 
light of  the  Gospel  day  began  before  tie  death  of  Christ,  so  some 
shades  of  the  Jewish  night,  or  rather,  morning  clouds  and  mists, 
might  be  expected  to  remain  some  time  after  that,  hovering 
about  the  solemn  and  splendid  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  affecting  in 
a  certain  degree  the  minds,  and  obscuring  the  perceptions  of 
the  Jewish  Christians  while  it  stood. 


206  CHRISTIAN    B    PTI3M". 


baptists,  is  substantially  the  same  thing  with  cir- 
cumcision— a  token  and  seal  of  the  same  covenant, 
its  appointed  substitute,  to  be  applied  to  the  same 
description  of  persons,  founded  on  the  same  law, 
and  occupying  the  same  place  in  the  Divine  econ- 
omy ?  And  could  they  do  that,  and  then  say  that 
thay  had  commanded  the  Gentiles  that  they  observe 
NO  such  thing  as  circumcision  ? 

The  assertion  that  "baptism  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  the  seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,"  has, 
like  all  other  arguments  in  favor  of  infant  baptism, 
not  a  particle  of  foundation  in  Scripture.  Baptism 
is  an  act  of  obedience,  by  which  we  put  on  and  pub- 
licly confess  Christ.  But  it  is  never  in  the  Bible 
represented  as  a  seal.  The  Christian  has  a  more 
exalted  seal  than  any  outward  ordinance,  viz.,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  "  whereby  he  is  sealed  unto  the  day  of 
redemption."  Eph.  iv.  30.  When  sinners  believe 
in  Christ,  they  are  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of 
promise,  which  is  "  the  earnest  of  their  inheritance 
until  the  redemption  of  the  purchased  possession." 
Eph.  i.  13.  The  seal,  then,  that  comes  in  the  room 
of  circumcision,  is  the  seal  of  the  Spirit. 

Finally,  it  ought  not  be  overlooked,  that  accord- 
ing to  Acts  xxi.  20,  21,  "  many  thousands  of  Jew=;," 
with  the  consent  of  the  Apostles,  continued  a  long 
time  to  "circumcise  their  children."  Would  they 
be  likely  at  the  same  time  to  baptize  them  ? 


CIRCUMCISION.  207 


TE8TIM0NIEa 

Dr.  A.  Keandeb  :  "  If  we  wish  to  ascertain  from 
whom  this  institution  (infant  baptism)  was  origin- 
ated, we  should  say,  certainly  not  immediately  from 
Christ  himself.  Was  it  from  the  primitive  church 
in  Palestine,  from  an  injunction  given  by  the  earlier 
Apostles  ?  But  among  the  Jewish  Christians,  cir- 
cumcision was  held  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant,  and 
hence  they  had  so  much  less  occasion  to  make  use 
of  another  dedication  for  their  children.  Could  it 
then  have  been  Paul  who  first,  among  Gentile 
Christians,  introduced  this  alteration,  by  the  use 
of  baptism  ?  But  this  would  agree  least  of  all  with 
the  peculiar  characteristics  of  this  Apostle.  He 
who  says  of  himself,  that  "  Christ  sent  him  not  to 
baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel ;''  he  who  always 
kept  his  eyes  fixed  on  one  thing — justification  by 
faith — and  so  carefully  avoided  every  thing  which 
could  give  a  handle  or  support  to  the  notion  of  a 
justification  by  outward  things,  how  could  he  have 
set  up  infant  baptism  against  the  circumcision  that 
continued  to  be  practiced  by  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians V* 

Professor  Stuart:  "How  unwary,  too,  are 
many  excellent  men,  in  contending  for  infant  bap- 
tism on  the  ground  of  the  Jewish  analogy  of  cir- 
cumcision !      Are  females  not  proper  subjects  of 

*  "Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian  Church,"  p.  102. 


208  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


baptism  ?  And  again,  are  a  man's  slaves  to  be  all 
baptized  because  he  is  ?  Are  they  church  mem- 
bers ? — of  course,  when  they  are  so  baptized.  Is 
there  no  difference  between  engrafting  into  a  poli- 
tico-ecclesiastical community,  and  into  one  of  which 
it  is  said,  that  it  is  not  of  tniis  worm  :  in  short, 
numberless  difficulties  present  themselves  in  our 
way,  as  soon  as  we  begin  to  argue  in  such  a  manner 
as  this."* 

*  On  Old  Testament,  g  22,  p.  395. 


PART   II. 

TESTIMONIES   FROM    THE    HISTORY    OF    THE 
CHRISTIAN   CHURCH. 


SECTION  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

We  have  now  considered  all  the  passages,  both 
of  the  New  and  Old  Testament,  that  either  ex- 
pressly mention  baptism,  or,  with  and  without 
ground,  have  been  thought  to  allude  to  it;  and 
we  renew  the  question  :  Where  is  the  passage  in 
Holy  Writ  that  furnishes  any  support  for  infant 
baptism  ?  In  vain  do  we  seek  for  it  in  the  Gos- 
pels, in  the  Acts,  in  the  Epistles,  or  in  the  Old 
Testament.  And  this  is  conceded  even  by  the 
most  distinguished  theologians  among  the  Pedo- 
baptists  themselves.  (See  pp.  114— ITT.)  But  while 
Pedobaptists  have  not  found  any  firm  footing  in  the 
Scriptures,  they  direct  us  to  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  maintaining  that  according  to  it  infant 
baptism  must  have  its  origin  in  the  Apostolic 
18*  (209) 


210  CHKISTIAX  BAPTISM. 


time,  and   that  sprinkling  and  pouring,  instead  of 
immersion,  can  be  traced  up  at  the  same  time. 

On  this  we  remark  :  Were  these  assertions  con- 
sistent with  truth,  they  still  would  fail  to  shake  our 
conviction  of  the  only  true  law  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, inasmuch  as  it  is  built  on  that  firm  rock — 
the  Word  of  God — which  shall  endure  even  when 
heaven  and  earth  have  passed  away.  The  word  of 
the  Lord,  such  as  it  is  delivered  to  us  in  Holy 
Scripture,  is  the  only  firm  and  sure  foundation  ; 
but  as  soon  as  we  step  without  its  limits — the  covers 
of  the  Bible — all  is  uncertain  and  unreliable.  As 
nothing  new  happens  under  the  sun,  so  error  did 
not  spring  up  first  yesterday  or  to-day,  but  counts 
its  descent  as  far  back  as  from  the  Fall.  It  did 
not  cease  to  flourish  even  when  the  light  of 
truth,  through  the  Apostles  of  the  Lord,  shone 
brightest  in  the  world.  Whosoever  peruses  atten- 
tively the  writings  of  the  Xew  Testament,  will, 
there,  already  recognize  the  germ  of  all  the  princi- 
pal doctrinal  errors  that  in  subsequent  times  have 
troubled  the  church  of  Christ.  That  doctrine  of 
gross  self-righteousness,  that  monkery,  that  prohi- 
bition of  marriage,  that  denial  of  the  true  Christ, 
that  false  philosophy,  etc.,  which  afterward  so  gen- 
erally prevailed  in  Christendom,  did  they  not  early 
spread  in  the  apostolic  churches  a  great  desola- 
tion, and  awaken  the  utmost  anxiety  in  the 
Apostles  ?  Whence  Paul  also  testifies  that  "  the 
mystery  of  iniquity,"  (2  Thess.  ii.  7),  which  after- 


TESTIMONIES    FBOII    HISTORY.  211 


ward  should  be  made  manifest  in  a  general  apos- 
tacy  throughout  Christendom,  was  already  working 
in  his  time.  If,  therefore,  any  trace  of  the  exist- 
ence of  infant  baptism  in  the  Apostles'  time  could 
be  found,  that  would  prove  nothing  else  than  that, 
among  many  other  errors,  even  this  leaven,  not 
the  least  injurious,  had  begun  to  ferment  and  cor- 
rupt the  church.  We  consider,  therefore,  the  tes- 
timonies furnished  by  church  history  not  as  a  neces- 
sary supplement  to  the  testimonies  of  Scripture,  as 
if  these  alone  were  not  sufficient  to  establish  the 
true  doctrine  of  baptism  ;  but  only  as  an  occasional 
confirmation  of  an  already  established  truth,  and  a 
further  refutation  of  the  weak  objections  against 
the  true  doctrine  of  baptism  which  Pedobaptists 
have  tried  to  deduce  from  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church. 

After  these  preliminary  remarks,  we  shall  now 
adduce  the  principal  records  contained  in  church 
history  concerning  the  origin  and  existence  of  in- 
fant baptism  during  the  first  ages  of  the  Christian 
church,  as  well  as  the  mode  in  which  baptism  has 
been  administered  during  all  times. 


SECTION   II. 

BAPTISM    IN    THE    APOSTOLIC    AGE,    OR    THE    FIRST 
CENTURY. 

As  we  seek  in  vain  to  find  any  allusion  to  infant 
baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  we  are  also  met 
with  an  entire  and  significant  silence  concerning  it 
from  the  most  ancient  records  of  church  history. 
Not  one  of  the  so-called  "  Apostolic  Fathers," — 
Barnabas,  Clemens  Romanus,  Hermas,  Ignatius, 
or  Polycarpus, — either  expressly  alludes  to  it,  or 
says  any  thing  that  may  be  referred  to  infant  bap- 
tism ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  their  writings  con- 
tain many  passages  where  the  baptism  of  believers 
is  mentioned.  The  unanimous  silence  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers  concerning  infant  baptism,  while  they 
often  mention  the  baptism  of  believers,  goes  far  to 
prove  that  they,  as  well  as  the  New  Testament, 
knew  nothing  of  the  baptism  of  infants. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  while  many  Pedo- 
baptists  affirm  that  infant  baptism  may  be  traced  in 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  up  to  the  very  times  of 
the  Apostles,  they  affirm  it  in  opposition  to  the 
standard  ecclesiastical  historians  and  divines  among 
the  Pedobaptists  themselves.  "We  have  already 
(212) 


THE    APOSTOLIC    AGE.  213 


adduced,  (pp.  104,  207,)  and  will,  further  on,  quote 
testimonies  against  the  apostolical  origin  of  infant 
baptism  by  Xeander,  the  most  eminent  ecclesiastical 
historian  of  our  time,  and  it  may  well  be  added,  of 
all  times.  To  his  testimony,  which  alone  might  be 
sufficient,  we  wish  only  to  add  the  following : 

Dr.  II.  A.  W.  Meyer  :  (whose  opinion  of  in- 
fant baptism  we  have  also  previously  seen,  p.  104)  : 
"Baptism,  without  instruction  and  faith,  never  ap- 
pears in  the  Scripture,  and  is  contrary  to  Matt, 
xxviii.  19.  The  early  and  continued  opposition  to 
infant  baptism  would  have  been  inexplicable  if  it 
had  been  an  undoubted  apostolical  institution."* 

Professor  Hahn  :  "  Neither  in  the  Scriptures, 
nor  during  the  first  hundred  and  fifty  years,  is  a 
sure  example  of  infant  baptism  to  be  found,  and 
we  must  concede  that  the  numerous  opposers  of  it 
cannot  be  contradicted  on  gospel  ground. "f 

Batjmgarten  Crusius:  "Infant  baptism  is  not 
supported  either  by  a  distinct  apostolical  tradition, \ 
or  by  the  practice  of  the  Apostles." 

*  Commentary  on  Acts  xvi.  15. 

f  Theology,  p.  556. 

j  Even  if  it  were,  it  would  giro  no  certainty,  much  less  Divine 
authority.  How  little  tradition  is  to  be  relied  on,  appears  from 
the  fact  that  even  the  first  disciples  were  deceived  when  they 
listened  to  its  voice.  On  one  occasion  Christ  said,  in  reference 
to  John,  "If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to 
thee?''  Tradition  immediately  distorted  the  question  into  an 
assertion  :  u  Then  went  that  saying  abroad  among  the  brethren 
that  that  disciple  should  not  die."  (John  xxi.  22,  23.)  Here 
tradition  uttered  a  falsehood,  and  taught,  as  usual,  a  lie. 


214  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


Matthies  :  " In  the  first  two  centuries  there  are 
no  documents  that  clearly  prove  the  existence  of 
infant  baptism  at  that  time.  Both  "Wall  and  Bing- 
ham trace  infant  baptism  back  as  far  as  to  the 
apostolic  time,  by  doing  violence  to  historical  evi- 
dence.'''* 

More  such  testimonies  by  Mosheim,  Olshausen, 
Winer,  Schleiermacher,  Gi-eseler,  Miinscher,  De 
Wette,  Curcellous,  Salmasius,  Suiarus,  &c,  might 
be  mentioned,  f 

*  Hist,  of  Theology,  p.  1203. 
f  Expositio  Baptismatis,  p.  187. 


SECTION  III. 

BAPTISM    IN    THE    SECOND    CENTURY. 

Among  the  Church  Fathers  of  the  second  century, 
Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
and  Tertullian,  are  the  most  renowned.  As  Pedo- 
baptists  have  sought  to  find  in  these  Fathers  evi- 
dence for  the  apostolic  origin  of  infant  baptism, 
we  shall  enter  into  a  somewhat  closer  examination 
of  the  passages  in  their  writings  which  have  been 
supposed  to  refer  to  infant  baptism. 

Justin  Martyr, 

The  passage  in  this  Father,  which  has  been  quoted 
by  some  Pedobaptists  in  defense  of  infant  baptism, 
is  of  the  following  effect :  "  Several  persons  among 
us  of  sixty  and  seventy  years  old,  of  both  sexes, 
who  were  discipled  to  Christ  from  their  childhood, 
do  continue  uncorrupted."* 

The  supposition  that  this  passage  alludes  to  in- 
fant baptism,  rests  on  the  expressions  "  were  dis- 
cipled," and  "from  their  childhood."  The  former 
of  those  expressions  corresponds  to  the  Greek 
word  "  Ematketeuthesan,"  which  is   also   ased  in, 

*  Wall.    u  Hist,  of  Infant  Baptism,"  part  i.,  ch.  ii.,  sec.  6. 

(215) 


216  CHRISTIAN"   BAPTISM. 


the  Commission,  Matt,  xxiii.  19.  Now  let  us  ask: 
How  can  this  word,  which  always  implies  instruc- 
tion, have  reference  to  new-born  children  that  are 
not  able  to  receive  any  instruction  ?  The  latter 
expression,  from  "childhood,"  (ek  jiaidoon),  is 
used  for  the  most  part  of  the  age  between  ten  and 
fifteen  years,  while  two  other  words,  (brephos  and 
paidion),  are  used  to  signify  infancy.  The  mean- 
ing of  this  passage,  consequently,  is  that  many  who 
in  their  childhood  had  received  Christian  instruc- 
tion and  been  converted,  had  persevered  in  an  un- 
blamable Christian  conduct  to  their  old  age.  Any 
allusion  to  baptism  is  not  here  to  be  found  ;  but 
if  they  had  been  baptized  in  their  childhood,  they 
had  previously  been  made  disciples  by  means  of 
instruction. 

That  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  our  passage  is 
confirmed  by 

Semisoh  (Lutheran) :  "  Whenever  Justin  refers 
to  baptism,  adults  appear  as  the  objects  to  whom 
the  sacred  rite  is  administered.  Of  an  infant  bap- 
tism he  knows  nothing.  The  traces  of  it  which 
some  persons  believe  they  have  detected  in  his 
writings,  are  groundless  fancies  artificially  pro- 
duced. In  the  words  :  '  Many  men  and  women, 
sixty  and  seventy  years  old,  who  from  children  have 
been  disciples  of  Christ,  persevere  in  their  conti- 
nence,'— nothing  more  is  said  than  that  many  in- 
dividuals of  both  sexes  became  disciples  of  Christ 
in  early  life.     The  idea  of  matheteuesthai  does 


THE   SECOND    CENTURY.  217 


not  necessarily  include  that  of  being  baptized  ;  it 
merely  brings  before  our  minds  a  catechumen. 
And  even  admitting  that  the  baptismal  rite  was 
included  in  maiheicuesthai,  this  by  no  means  is  de- 
cisive of  a  reference  to  infant  baptism.  Ek 
paidoon  (from  children)  contrasted  with  '  sixty  and 
seventy  years  old,'  may  well  denote  the  entrance 
of  the  period  of  youth.'-* 

MATTHIES  :  "  Though  the  formula  matheteues- 
thai  tini  undeniably  signifies  to  be  a  disciple  of 
such  a  one,  yet  this  signification  by  no  means  con- 
tains the  idea  that  that  disciple  has  been  already 
baptized  ;  for  one  can  be  called  a  disciple,  who, 
though  he  has  not  received  baptism,  is  eagerly 
learning  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  and  is  therefore 
taught  the  gospel.  It  is  this  which  Justin  seems 
to  have  had  in  mind.  For  he  himself,  in  another 
place,  giving  an  account  of  baptism,  relates  that 
only  those  icho  believe  the  things  they  are  taught, 
so  as  to  be  persuaded  that  they  can  live  in  a  Chris- 
tian manner,  are  brought  to  baptism.  It  is  thus 
evident  that  in  Justin's  opinion,  baptism  is  to  be 
given  after  believing  in  Christ.  Xothing  else,  there- 
fore, is  contained  in  that  saying  of  Justin's,  than 
that  many  instructed  in  the  gospel  from  an  early 
age  remain  continent."^ 

*  Monograph  on  the  Life  and  Works  of  Justin,  vol.  2,  pjj. 
334,  335. 

|  Expositio  Baptismatis,  p.  1S7.  See  the  "  Christian  Review," 
Boston,  vol.  3.  p.  198. 
19 


213  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


With  these  testimonies  agree  Winer,  Rheinwald, 
Munscher,  Hahn,  Lange,  and  nearly  all  the  Ger- 
man writers.  Far  from  rendering  any  support  to 
infant  baptism,  Justin,  on  the  other  hand,  affords 
in  another  passage  a  decisive  testimony  against  it. 
This  passage  is  to  be  found  in  his  Second  Apology 
to  the  emperor  Antoninus  Pius,  and  reads  thus  : 

u  I  will  now  relate  the  manner  in  which  we,  hav- 
ing been  renewed  by  Christ,  dedicate  ourselves  to 
God,  lest,  if  I  omit  this,  I  shall  seem  to  deal  in 
some  respect  perversely  in  this  account.  As  many  as 
are  persuaded  and  believe  that  the  things  taught  by 
us  are  true,  and  promise  to  live  according  to  them, 
are  directed  first  to  pray  and  ask  of  God,  with  fast- 
ing, the  forgiveness  of  their  former  sins  ;  we  pray- 
ing and  fasting  together  with  them.  Afterward 
they  are  conducted  by  us  to  some  place  where  there 
is  water,  and  after  the  same  way  of  regeneration 
whereby  we  were  ourselves  regenerated,  they  are 
regenerated.  For  they  then  take  a  bath  in  the 
water  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  God,  and  Father  of 
all,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  .  .  .  And  now,  in  reference  to  this 
thing  (viz.,  baptism,  including  all  the  transactions 
described),  we  have  learned  from  the  Apostles  this 
reason  :  because  we,  being  ignorant  of  our  first 
birth,  was  generated  by  necessity,  .  .  .  and  have 
been  brought  up  in  its  customs  and  conversation, 
that  we  should  no  longer  remain  children  of  neces- 
sity and   ignorance,  but  of  choice  and  knowledge, 


THE    SECOND    CENTURY.  219 


and  that  we  may  obtain  in  the  water  remission  of 
the  sins  in  which  we  had  before  transgressed, — the 
name  of  the  Lord  God,  and  Father  of  all,  is  pro- 
nounced over  him  who  chooses  to  be  regenerated* 
and  repents  of  his  sins,  etc." 

In  how  many  ways  does  not  "  this  account''  make 
against  that  baptism  which  in  the  latter  ages  was 
so  generally  received  in  Christendom  !  Justin  is 
giving  the  emperor  a  full  statement  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  baptism  in  the  entire  Christian  body. 
All  the  subjects  of  baptism,  he  says,  are  "  persuaded 
and  believe,"  "  promise  to  live  according  to  our 
doctrine,"  and  seek  "with  fasting  the  forgiveness 
of  their  sins,  we  fasting  and  praying  with  them  ;" 
and  they  are  then  "conducted  to  some  place  where 
there  is  water,"  to  be  baptized.  In  baptism  they 
are  not  "  children  of  necessity  and  ignorance,  but 
of  choice  and  knowledge."  The  candidate  repents 
of  his  sins,  and  chooses  to  be  baptized. 

*  Justin  evidently  attached  to  the  primitive  baptism  of  peni- 
tent believers  some  ideas  not  warranted  by  the  Scriptures,  which 
never  speak  of  baptism  as  regeneration,  or  of  the  remission  of 
gins  being  received  in  the  water.  His  incautious  use  of  lan- 
guage in  reference  to  this  ordinance  as  originally  administered 
to  believers,  led  others  to  still  wider  departures  from  the  sim- 
plicity and  truth  of  the  Scriptures.  We  are  bound  here  to  re- 
member the  words  of  our  Lord:  "Call  no  man  master  upon 
earth,  for  one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ,  and  all  ye  are  breth- 
ren." Matt,  xxiii.  9,  10.  How  much  mischief  has  resulted  from 
misinterpretation  of  Scripture  by  the  early  Fathers,  it  is  not  our 
business  to  decide. 


220  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


How  does  this  agree  with  infant  baptism  now  in 
use  ?  Are  unconscious  children  in  baptism,  chil- 
dren of  choice  and  knowledge  ?  Arc  they  per- 
suaded ?  Do  they  believe  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
and  engage  to  live  according  to  it  ?  Do  they  fast 
and  pray  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ?  Do  they 
repent  of  their  sins  ?  Compare  the  language  of 
Justin  with  the  following  from  Augustine,  written 
some  two  centuries  and  a  half  later,  when  infant 
baptism  was  well  established.  "  Children,"  he  says, 
"  who  can  neither  mill  nor  refuse  either  good  or 
evil,  are  nevertheless  compelled  to  be  holy  and 
righteous  when,  struggling  and  crying  with  tears 
against  it,  they  are  regenerated  by  holy  baptism. 
For,  doubtless,  dying  before  the  use  of  reason,  they 
will  be  holy  and  righteous  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 
through  grace,  to  which  they  come  not  by  their 
own  ability,  but  by  necessity. v*  This  language  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  infant  baptism,  but  that 
of  Justin  is  as  decidedly  opposed  to  it. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  number  of  children 
of  Christians  at  the  time  of  Justin  must  have  been 
very  great,  and  if  they  all  were  baptized,  infant 
baptism  must  have  been  an  important  part  of  the 
rites  of  the  Christians,  whereof  Justin  here  was 
giving  an  account.  Now  he  professed  to  give  such 
a  complete  and  exact  statement  of  the  doctrines 
and  rites  of  the  Christians,  that  he  might  not,  by 

#  Emerson's  Wigger's  Augustinistn  and  Pelagiaiiism,  p.  12. 


THE   SECOND   CENTURY.  221 


"omitting1'  some  important  thing,  be  considered  to 
"deal  perversely  in  some  part  of  his  account." 
But  if  infant  baptism  at  this  time  was  prevailing 
in  the  Christian  Church,  this  account  would  cer- 
tainly have  been  both  unfair  and  untrue  ;  for  it 
affirms  of  all,  such  things  that  would  have  been  true 
with  respect  to  one  part  only.  Could  any  mission- 
ary among  the  Pedobaptists  of  our  time,  a  hundred 
years  after  the  introduction  of  Christianity  in  any 
country,  give  such  an  account  as  this  to  a  heathen 
emperor  ?  Could  he,  with  any  appearance  of  sin- 
cerity, compose  his  account  so  as  not  to  leave  any 
room  for  infant  baptism  in  it  ? 

A  more  conclusive  evidence  against  infant  bap- 
tism from  church  history,  than  this,  it  is  impossible 
to  conceive  of.  Had  Justin  said  in  express  terms : 
"Baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  to  believers; 
infants  may  not  be  baptized,"  while  his  testimony 
against  it  would  have  been  explicit,  it  would  also 
have  strongly  implied  that  there  were  some  in  that 
day  who  thought  that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized, 
and  hence,  that  the  rite  then  was  in  existence. 
But  by  simply  describing  baptism,  and  the  princi- 
ples on  which  it  was  administered,  in  such  a  way  as 
totally  to  exclude  the  conception  of  infant  baptism, 
it  is  a  demonstration  that  it  neither  existed,  nor 
was  so  much  as  thought  of  at  that  time.  It  is  just 
such  a  testimony  against  infant  baptism  as  would 
be  desired.  And  this  is  the  nature  of  the  testimony 
against  infant  baptism,  both  in  the  New  Testa- 
19* 


222  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


ment  and  the  earliest  Christian  writers.  It  is  not 
a  contradiction  of  it  in  express  terms ;  this  would 
prove  its  actual  existence,  but  it  is  a  most  perfect 
negation  of  it :  a  clear  evidence  that  any  such 
thing  as  is  called  infant  baptism  did  not  exist  in 
the  primitive  church. 

This  testimony  becomes  still  more  important,  if 
we  consider  that  Justin,  in  the  first  place,  declares 
that  he  and  his  cotemporaries  had  "learned"  how 
they  should  act  at  baptism,  "from  the  Apostles;''9 
and  that  he,  in  the  second  place,  lived  very  near  to 
the  apostolic  time,  yea,  was,  according  to  Dr.  Wall 
(the  famous  defender  of  infant  baptism),  born  in  the 
Apostles'  time,  and  wrote  about  forty  years  after 
it.* 

Finally,  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  at  the  time 
of  Justin,  penitent  and  believing  disciples  were 
"conducted  to  some  place  where  there  was  water," 
there  to  be  baptized  by  immersion,  while  the  Pedo- 
baptists  of  our  time  usually  carry  the  water  to  the 
candidate. 

IRENvEUS. 

The  passage  which  has  been  most  relied  on  in 
support  of  infant  baptism,  is  the  following  of  Ire- 

*  "History  of  Infant  Baptism,  Oxford,  1S44,  vol.  4,  p.  511." 
Dr.  "Wall  remarks:  "A  testimony  of  Justin's  is  more  considerable 
than  of  five  or  six  later  ones.  Any  words  of  bis  tbat  should 
plainly  and  expressly  determine  either  for  or  a<jaiust  infant  bap- 
tism, would  be  a  more  material  and  decisive  evidence  than  any 
that  has  yet  been  produced  from  antiquity  en  either  side."  IbiJ. 


THE    SECOND    CENTURY.  223 


nsens,  bishop  at  Lyons  about  the  year  110  afler 
Christ  : 

"  Therefore,  as  lie  (Christ)   was  a  Master,  He 

had  also  the  age  of  a  Master ;  not  disdaining  nor 
going  in  a  way  above  human  nature,  nor  breaking, 
in  his  own  person,  the  law  which  lie  had  made  for 
mankind,  but  sanctifying  every  several  age  by  the 
likeness  that  it  lias  to  Himself;  for  He  came  to 
save  all  persons  by  Himself— all,  I  mean,  who  by 
Him  are  regenerated  unto  God,  infants,  and  little 
ones,  and  children,  and  elder  persons.  Therefore, 
He  icent  through  the  several  ages  :  for  infants  be- 
ing made  an  infant,  sanctifying  infants  ;  and  also 
giving  an  example  of  godliness,  justice,  and  dutiful- 
ness  :  among  the  youths  a  youth,  becoming  an  ex- 
ample to  the  youths,  and  sanctifying  them  to  the 
Lord  :  thus,  also,  an  elderly  person  among  elderly 
persons,  that  He  might  be  a  perfect  Master  among 
all,  not  only  in  respect  to  the  presentation  of  truth, 
bat  also  in  respect  to  the  age,  sanctifying  at  the 
same  time  the  elderly  persons,  and  becoming  to 
them  an  example  :  thus,  too,  He  i^assed  through 
even  unto  death,  that  He  might  be  the  first-born 
from  the  dead,  Himself  holding  the  primary  in  all 
things,  the  Prince  of  Life,  superior  to  all,  and  pre- 
ceding all."* 

On  this  passage,  Rev.  Barnas  Sears,  D.D.,  Presi- 
dent of  Brown  University,  writes:     "Everything 

*  Iren.  adv.  Hwr.,  lib.  2.  c.  22.  2  4.    Ed.  Bened,  1710. 


224:  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


here  turns  on  the  meaning  of  renascuntur  (are  born 
again).  If  it  means  they  were  regenerated,  then  it 
has  nothing  to  do  with  our  subject ;  if  it  means 
they  mere  baptized,  then  it  proves  the  existence  of 
infant  baptism  in  the  time  of  Irenaeus.  This  ques- 
tion cannot  be  settled,  as  many  have  thought,  by  an 
appeal  to  later  writers,  for  the  idea  of  baptismal 
regeneration  was  of  gradual  growth,  and  in  every 
successive  period,  from  the  Apostles  to  the  middle 
ages,  words  were  changed  in  their  meaning,  to  cor- 
respond with  the  change  of  ideas  !  The  scholastic 
writers  attach  more  to  the  word  than  Chrysostom 
aud  Gregory,  and  these  more  than  Irenaeus  and 
Justin  Martyr." 

After  a  most  elaborate  investigation  of  passages 
in  the  writings  of  Irenaeus,  with  respect  to  this 
question,  Dr.  Sears  comprises  the  results  of  his  ex- 
amination under  the  following  points  : 

"  1.  The  phrase,  '  regenerated  through  Christ 
unto  God,'  if  it  means  the  general  recovery  of  man 
through  Christ's  incarnation  and  redemption,  has 
numerous  parallels  in  the  writings  of  Irenaeus  ;  if  it 
mean  *  baptized  through  Christ  unto  God,'  it  has  no 
parallel — absolutely  none. 

"2.  The  phrase,  'baptism  through  Christ  unto 
God,'  is  an  incongruous  idea,  nowhere  to  be  found 
in  the  Scriptures,  in  the  writings  of  Irenaeus,  or  in 
any  other  Father  or  writer,  ancient  or  modern. 

"'Regeneration,'  standing  alone  without  any 
such  word  as   'baptism,'  or   'bath,'  prefixed,  and 


THE   SECOND   CENTURY.  225 


governing  it  in  the  genitive,  never  means  baplism 
in  Ire  nee  us. 

"  4.  That  Christ  sanctified  infants  by  becoming 
an  infant  himself,  has  several  parallels  in  Irenaeus. 
1  He  became  an  iufant  to  aid  our  weak  apprehen- 
sion.' 'He  became  an  infant  with  us  (sunenepia- 
zeri)  on  this  account.'  'He  went  into  Egypt,  sanc- 
tifying the  infants  that  were  there.'  It  would  be 
absurd  to  suppose  that  the  infant  Jesus  baptized 
the  Egyptian  infants. 

"  5.  That  by  passing  through  the  several  stages 
of  human  life,  from  infancy  to  old  age,  He  sancti- 
fied human  nature  in  these  various  ages  by  his  own 
incarnation  and  example,  is  an  idea  often  repeated 
by  Irenaeus,  and  by  modern  writers,  too,  as  Sarto- 
rius.  But,  if  this  be  limited  to  baptism,  or  to  the 
baptized,  it  will  contradict  what  he  elsewhere  says. 

"  6.  The  general  character  of  His  redemption 
and  regeneration,  as  expressed  in  this  passage,  ac- 
cording to  our  interpretation,  is  a  favorite  idea  by 
our  author  ;  a  similar  sentiment  in  regard  to  bap- 
tism,  is  not  to  be  found  in  his  writings. 

"  7.  The  connection  of  the  latter  part  of  the  sen- 
tence with  the  former,  as  explaining  or  amplifying 
the  idea,  is  weakened,  if  not  destroyed,  by  the 
other  interpretation." 

That  the  interpretation  above  is  consistent  with 
the  truth,  ought,  at  a  closer  consideration  of  our 
passage,  to  be  evident  to  every  one;  and  no  one, 
unless  he  seeks  for  something  that  never  came  into 


226  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


the  mind  of  Irenams,  can  here  find  an  evidence  for 
infant  baptism.  For  the  passage  only  teaches  that 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  order  to  save  mankind, 
has  sanctified  every  several  age  by  passing,  Himself, 
through  all  the  stages  of  life.  But  that  new-born 
children  needed  not  to  be.  baptized  in  order  to  be 
partakers  of  that  sanctifying,  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  our  Saviour,  according  to  another  passage 
in  Irenaeus,  "'  after  his  birth  was  carried  to  Egypt, 
to  sanctify  the  infants  there/'  "Why  should  He 
sanctify  the  infants  in  Egypt,  if  they  could  have  no 
use  of  it  without  baptism  ?"  Again,  the  connection 
directs  our  attention  to  Christ  Himself:  it  is  by 
Himself,  not  by  baptism,  He  saves  :  it  is  "  by  Him," 
not  by  baptism,  men  "are  regenerated  unto  God.''* 
If  the  expression  regenerated  here  meant  baptized, 
that  would  convey  the  absurd  idea  that  no  others 
could  be  saved  than  those  who  had  been  baptized 
by  Christ  himself  personally;  for  it  reads:  "He 
came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself — all,  I  mean, 
who  by  Him  are  regenerated  (baptized !)  unto  God." 
We  find,  consequently,  that  the  word  regenerated 
here  cannot  be  synonymous  with  baptized. 

TESTIMONIES. 

Dr.  Hagenbacti  :  "  Xor  does  the  earliest  passage 
occurring  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  (Irenaeus  adv. 
Haer.  ii.  22,  4)  afford  any  decisive  proof.    It  only  ex- 

*   Christian  Review,  vol.  3,  p.  206. 


THE    SECOND    CENTURY.  227 


presses  the  beautiful  idea,  that  Jesus  was  Redeemer  in 
every  stage  of  life,  and  for  every  stage  of  life  ;  but 
it  does  not  say  that  lie  redeemed  children  by  the 
water s  of  baptism,  unless  the  term  renasci  be  inter- 
preted, by  the  most  arbitrary  petitio  prineipii,  to 
refer  to  baptism.* 

ROssler  :  "All  the  arguments  put  together  do 
not  prove  that  to  be  regenerated  to  God"  (in  this 
passage  of  Ircnaeus)  "means  to  be  baptized."^ 

With  these  testimonies  agree  Baumgarten,  Cru- 
sius,  Yiner,  Starck,  Manscher,  Yon  Coin,  Krabbe, 
^BohringerJ — all  celebrated  divines  among  the  Pedo- 
baptists  of  Germany. 

CLEMENT   OF    ALEXANDRIA. 

This  Father  was  born  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  The  passage  which  has  been  adduced 
from  his  writings  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  reads 
as  follows : 

"  If  any  one  be  by  trade  a  fisherman,  he  will  do 
well  to  think  of  an  Apostle,  and  the  children  taken 
out  of  the  water.  "§ 

As  this  passage,  among  the  Pedobaptists,  now 
generally  is  given  up  as  proving  nothing,  we  wish 
only  to  make  a  few  remarks. 

In  the  book  from  which  this  passage  is  taken, 

•  History  of  Doctrines,  E  linburgh,  1S46,  vol.  4,  p.  193. 
f  Library  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  vol.  1,  p.  11. 
j  Christian  Review,  vol.  3,  p.  213. 
£  Pedag.  lib.  3,  c.  11. 


228  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


Clement  represents  Christ  under  the  figure  of  a 
child's  instructor,  and  all  Christians  as  His  children. 

The  word  children  here,  consequently,  is  to  be 
taken  in  a  figurative  sense,  which  is  also  the  opinion 
of  Neander,  who  says  :  "  When  one  wishes  to  prove 
the  existence  of  infant  baptism  from  the  above  pas- 
sage in  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  which  indeed  has 
reference  to  baptism,  this  would  hardly  serve  as  an 
argument,  for  while  the  idea  of  the  Divine  Child's 
instructor  stood  before  the  eyes  of  Clement,  he 
might  call  all  Christians  children.  This  passage 
undoubtedly  speaks  of  the  conversion  and  new  birth 
with  reference  to  all  men."* 

Another  passage  of  a  greater  extent  in  Clement, 
speaks  by  implication  as  strongly  as  that  from  Jus- 
tin, previously  quoted,  against  infant  baptism, f 
which  passage,  however,  our  limits  will  not  permit 
us  to  examine. 

We  find  also,  in  the  writings  of  Clement,  an  evi- 
dence that  baptism  at  his  time  was  administered  by 
immersion.  For  he  says  :  "Ye  were  conducted  to 
a  bath,  just  as  Christ  was  carried  to  the  grave,  and 
were  thrice  immersed,  to  signify  the  three  days  of 
his  burial."J  Even  in  the  passage  first  quoted, 
the  words  "  taken  out  of  the  water"  clearly  allude 
to  immersion. 

*  Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  364. 

t  Pedag.  lib.  1,  c.  6.     Ch.  Rev.,  vol.  6,  p.  311,  et.  teq. 

%  Mystagog.  2. 


THE    SECOND    CENTURY.  229 


TEBTULLTAN. 

Tertullian  lived  about  the  year  A.  D.  200.  He 
is  the  first  one  who  mentions  the  baptism  of  little 
children  (jet  not  expressly  of  infants),  and  opposes 
it.  In  a  writing  directed  against  Quintilla,  the 
leader  of  an  heretical  sect  called  Quintillians,  among 
whom  the  first  traces  of  the  existence  of  infant  bap- 
tism  are  found,  he  says,  with  respect  to  it  chiefly, 
as  follows  :  "  Baptism  is  not  to  be  given  rashly.  .  . 
Therefore,  according  to  each  one's  condition  and 
character,  as  well  as  age,  the  delaying  of  baptism  is 
more  profitable,  especially  in  the  case  of  tittle  chil- 
dren. Our  Lord  says,  indeed  :  Do  not  forbid  them 
to  come  to  me.  Therefore,  let  them  come  when 
they  are  growing  up,  ichen  they  are  instructed 
whither  it  is  that  they  come;    let  them  be  made 

Christians  ichen  they  can  know  Christ Let 

them  know  how  to  desire  this  salvation,  that  you 
may  appear  to  have  given  to  one  that  asketh."* 

As  to  this  passage,  we  wish  only  to  quote  the 
following 

TESTIMONIES. 

Xeander  :  "Tertullian  evidently  means  that 
children  should  be  led  to  Christ,  by  instructing  them 
in  Christianity ;  but  that  they  should  not  receive 
baptism  until,  after  having  been  sufficiently  instructed, 
they  are  led  from  personal  conviction,  and  by  their 
own  free  choice,  to  seek  for  it,  with  sincere  longings 

*   Tertull.  de  Baptismo,  c.  18. 

20 


230  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


of  heart Soon  after  Irenseus,   toward  the 

close  of  the  second  century,  Tertullian  appears  as  a 
zealous  opposer  of  infant  baptism — a  proof  that  it 
wa6  not  yet  customary  to  regard  this  as  an  apos- 
tolic institution ;  for  had  it  been  so,  he  would 
hardly  have  ventured  to  oppose  it  so  warmly.  .  .  . 
For  these  reasons,  Tertulliaii  declared  against  infant 
baptism,  which  at  that  time  was  certainly  not  a 
generally  prevailing  practice — was  not  yet  regarded 
as  an  apostolic  institution.  On  the  contrary,  as 
the  assertions  of  Tertullian  render  in  the  highest 
degree  probable,  it  had  just  begun  to  spread,  and  was 
therefore  regarded  by  many  as  an  innovation."* 

aTatthies  :  "  Tertullian — who,  as  every  body 
knows,  labored  with  the  utmost  zeal  to  preserve 
every  church  institute  as  being  of  apostolic  origin, 
yet  vehemently  opposes  the  practice  of  baptizing 
infants;  whence  it  is  evident,  that  infant  baptism 
had  come  into  use,  certainly  in  the  Carthaginian 
church,  and  that  it  was  regarded  as  an  institute 
which  did  not  proceed  from  Christ  nor  the  Apos- 
tles. .  .  Since  Tertullian  was  a  very  strenuous  ad- 
vocate of  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  most  un- 
friendly to  changes,  with  the  exception  of  Montan- 
ism,  it  is  obvious  that  the  custom  of  infant  baptism 
was  not  yet,  at  that  time,  prevalent  in  all  the 
churches."* 

*  Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  312,  Torrey's  translat.  Spirit 
of  Tertull.  p.  20. 

f  Expositio  Baptismatis,  pp.  191,  193. 


THE   SECOND   CENTUBY.  231 


Venema  :  "  Tertullian  dissuades  from  infant  bap- 
tism, which  he  would  not  have  done  if  it  had  been 
a  tradition  and  a  prevailing  custom  in  the  church, 
because  he  adhered  very  closely  to  traditions  ;  nor, 
had  it  have  been  a  tradition,  would  he  have  failed 
to  mention  it.  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  Pedo- 
baptism  cannot  be  plainly  proved  to  have  been 
practiced  before  the  time  of  Tertullian,  and  that 
there  were  persons  in  his  age  who  desired  their  in- 
fants might  be  baptized,  which  opinion  Tertullian 
opposed,  and  by  so  doing,  intimates  that  Pedobap- 
tism  began  to  prevail."* 

As  to  the  mode,  Tertullian  also  affords  an  import- 
ant testimony.  He  says:  "We,  like  fishes,  are 
born  in  the  water,  and  are  safe  in  continuing  in  it — ■ 
that  is,  in  the  practice  of  immersion."  .  .  .  Again, 
"  We  are  immersed  three  times,  fulfilling  somewhat 
more  than  our  Lord  has  decreed  in  the  Gospel." 
And  again,  "There  is  no  difference  whether  one  is 
washed  in  a  sea  or  in  a  pool,  in  a  river  or  in  a  foun- 
tain, in  a  lake  or  in  a  channel ;  nor  is  there  any 
difference  between  them  whom  John  dipped  (tinxit) 
in  Jordan,  and  those  whom  Peter  dipped  in  the 
Tiber,  "f 

*  Hist  Eccles.  torn.  3,  seirel.  2,  §§  180,  109. 
f  De.  Cor.  Milit.  c.  3.      De  Bapt.  c.  4. 


SECTION  IT. 

BAPTISM    IN    THE    THIRD    CENTURY. 

Only  two  of  the  seven  Fathers  who  lived  in  this 
century  are  considered  to  have  given  testimonies  of 
the  existence  of  infant  baptism,  viz.,  Origen  and 
Cyprian. 

ORIGEN. 

This  Father— born  A.  D.  185,  and  died  A.  D. 
254 — lived  in  Alexandria  of  Egypt.  Three  pas- 
sages in  his  writings — viz.,  one  in  his  Homilies  on 
Leviticus,  another  in  his  Homilies  on  Luke,  and  the 
third  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans— have  been  quoted  as  decisive  arguments  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism. 

Before  introducing  the  passages  themselves,  it 
ought  to  be  observed  that  they  do  not  exist  in  the 
language  in  which  they  were  written  by  Origen,  but 
only  in  the  Latin,  into  which  they  were  translated 
near  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  by  the  church 
Fathers,  Jerome  and  Rufinus.  These  Fathers  have 
taken  such  liberties  with  the  Greek  original  by  alter- 
ations, additions,  and  omissions,  that  they  rather 
may  be  considered  to  have  given  a  treatise  than  a 
(282) 


THE   THIRD   CENTURY.  233 


faithful  translation  of  the  writings  of  Origen.  This 
clearly  appears  by  comparing  such  passages  in  the 
writings  of  Origen  as  still  exist  in  the  Greek  with 
the  Latin  translations.  This  both  Jerome  and  Ru- 
finus  have  themselves  freely  acknowledged,  and  that 
for  their  own  credit,  as  the  writings  of  Origen  were 
considered  to  contain  heretical  sentiments. 

The  same  is  also  testified  by  distinguished  divines 
among  Pedobaptists.  Thus  De  la  Rue,  the  editor 
of  the  Benedictine  edition  of  the  works  of  Origen, 
remarks,  that  we  need  not  wonder  if  the  writings 
of  Origen  contain  indications  of  a  later  age,  as  they 
were  translated  by  "  Jerome,  ichose  usual  manner, 
in  translating  Greek,"  he  adds,  uthe  learned  know 
to  have  been  lo  insert  occasionally  some  things  of 
his  oicn.r* 

Likewise  Dr.  Redepenning,  Theological  Profes- 
sor in  Gottingen,  in  his  celebrated  work  on  Origen, 
says  concerning  the  translation  of  Rufinus,  "  His 
work  is  intermediate  between  a  translation  and  a 
treatise — a  reproduction  adapted  to  the  views  and 
icants  of  the  later  age  in  which  it  teas  prepared."^ 
And  also  the  learned  Erasmus,  coeval  with  Luther, 
complains  of  the  same  translation,  that  the  reader 

*  See  the  preface  to  the  edition  of  Origen's  Works,  above 
mentioned. 

f  "So  istsein"Werk  ein  Mittlores  Zwischen  Ubersetzung  und 
Bearbeitung,  eine  Wiedererzeugung  nach  Massgabe  der  Ansich- 
ten  nnd  Bedurfnisse  des  spateren  Jahrhunderts." — "Origines: 
Darstell.  8.  Lebens  u.  s.  Lehre,"voI.  2.  p.  190. 

20* 


234  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


is   "  uncertain   whether  he   reads    Origen    or   Ru- 
finus."* 

After  these  remarks,  from  which  it  appears  that 
the  authority  of  the  passages  from  the  writings  of 
Origen,  in  support  of  infant  baptism,  is  dubious,  we 
proceed  to  introduce  the  passages  themselves,  mark- 
ing the  more  doubtful  pares  with  brackets. 

Homily  YIIL,  on  Leviticus  12  :  1-8 — according 
to  Ru fin's  Latin  version. 
"  Hear  David  speaking  :  I  was,  says  he,  con- 
ceived in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  bring 
me  forth  ;  showing  that  every  soul  that  is  born  in 
flesh  is  polluted  with  the  filth  of  iniquity  and  sin, 
and  that,  therefore,  that  was  said  which  we  men- 
tioned before,  that  none  is  clean  from  pollution, 
though  his  life  be  but  of  the  length  of  one  day. 
[To  these  considerations  it  can  be  added,  that  it 
may  be  inquired  why,  since  the  baptism  of  the 
church  is  given  for  the  remission  of  sins,  baptism  is 
given  according  to  the  observance  of  the  church 
even  to  children  (parvulis)  ;  for  the  grace  of  bap- 
tism would  seem  superfluous,  if  there  were  nothing 
in  children  requiring  remission  and  indulgence.]'' 

Homily  on  Luke  2  :  21-24 — according  to  Jerome's 
Latin  version. 

"  [Having  occasion  given  in  this  place,  I  touch 
again  upon  ichat  is  frequently  inquire  d  about  among 

*  "Wall's  Hi.=  tory  of  Infant  baptism,"  part   1,  eh.  5,  \  6. 


THE   THIRD    CENTURY.  23£ 


the  brethren.  Children  are  baptized  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  Of  what  sins  ?  or  when  have  they 
sinned  ?  or  how  can  any  reason  of  the  laver  in  their 
case  hold  good,  unless  according  to  that  sense, 
which  we  have  jnst  now  mentioned.  None  is  free 
from  pollution,  though  his  life  be  but  of  the  length 
of  one  day  upon  the  earth.  And  because,  through 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,  the  pollution  of  nativity 
is  removed,  therefore  children  (parvuli)  also  are 
baptized.  For  unless  any  one  may  be  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  will  not  be  able  to  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."] 

Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Book 
5,  9 — according  to  Rufiris  Latin  version. 
"And  also  in  the  law,  it  is  commanded  that  a 
sacrifice  be  offered  for  the  child  that  is  born  ;  a  pair 
of  turtle-doves,  or  two  young  pigeons,  of  which  one 
is  for  a  sin-offering,  the  other  for  a  burnt-offering. 
For  what  sin  is  this  one  pigeon  offered  ?  Can  the 
new-born  child  have  committed  any  sin  ?  And  yet 
it  has  sin,  for  which  the  sacrifice  is  commanded  to 
be  offered,  and  from  which  even  he  whose  life  is  but 
of  one  day  is  denied  to  be  free.  Of  this  sin,  there- 
fore, David  is  to  be  supposed  to  have  said  that 
which  we  mentioned  before.  In  sin  did  my  motJier 
conceive  me  ;  for  no  sin  of  his  mother  is  affirmed 
in  history.  [For  this  also  the  church  has  received 
a  tradition  from  the  Apostles  to  give  baptism  even 
to  children  (parvulis)  ;  for  they  to  whom  the  secrets 


236  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM, 


of  the  divine  mysteries  were  committed,  knew  that 
in  all  persons  there  is  the  native  pollution  of  sin, 
which  must  be  done  away  by  the  water  and  the 
Spirit,  on  account  of  which  pollution  even  the  body 
itself  is  called  the  body  of  sin.] 

If  Jerome  and  Kulinus  added  the  sentences  in- 
cluded in  brackets,  they  did  only  what  was  in  ac- 
cordance with  their  avowed  manner  in  these  trans- 
lations, and  they  expressed  themselves  as  they 
naturally  would  have  done  in  the  time  and  circum- 
stances in  which  they  lived.  If  we,  however,  sup- 
pose that  the  words  in  the  above  passages  mention- 
ing baptism  of  children  actually  come  from  Origen, 
they  prove,  in  the  first  place,  nothing  more  than 
that  the  usage  of  baptizing  children  existed  in  the 
time  of  Origen,  or  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, which  is  an  admitted  point ;  secondly,  that 
this  was  supposed  to  have  the  power  of  washing 
away  original  sin,  or  "  the  pollutions  of  our  nativ- 
ity;" and  thirdly,  that  Origen  declares  the  baptism 
of  children  for  this  end  to  have  come  from  the 
Apostles.  It  is  around  this  supposed  or  actual 
declaration  of  Origen  the  whole  controversy  turns. 
We  shall  therefore  consider  it  the  more  carefully. 

1.  When  it  reads  that  "the  church  had  received 
a  tradition  from  the  Apostles  to  give  baptism  even 
to  children,"  etc.,  it  is  not  asserted  either  that 
Christ  himself,  or  any  of  his  Apostles,  had  com- 
manded infant  baptism,  but  only  that  a  tradition 
had  been  handed  down  from  generation  to  genera- 


THE   THIRD   CENTURY.  237 


lion,  as  from  the  Apostles,  that  baptism  should  bo 
administered  even  to  children.  The  Apostles  gave 
no  direction  concerning  the  baptism  of  children  in 
open  terms.  No  !  They  to  whom  the  secret  thing.-; 
of  the  Divine  mysteries  were  committed,  knew,  etc. 
Now  we  are  able  clearly  to  prove  that  such  an 
opinion,  even  if  held  by  Origen,  must  be  erroneous. 
For,  according  to  the  rule  authorized  in  the 
ancient  church  :  "  Quod  semper,  quod  ubique,  quod 
ab  omnibus,  (Wfiat  has  been  held  always,  every- 
where,  and  by  all),  teas  to  be  considered  as  an 
apostolical  tradition.  Origen  had  no  right  to  call 
infant  baptism  an  apostolical  tradition.  For  it 
had  been  practiced  neither  always,  nor  everywhere, 
nor  by  all.  Tertullian,  a  short  time  before,  had 
opposed  it,  which  he  would  not  have  done  if  it  had 
generally  been  received  as  an  apostolical  institu- 
tion, as  he  was  an  ardent  defender  of  such  usages 
as  were  considered  to  have  an  apostolic  origin  ; 
and  even  in  Origen's  time,  according  to  Xeander, 
'•'difficulties  were  frequently  urged  against  infant 
baptism,  similar  to  those  thrown  out  by  Tertullian.* 
Again,  we  not  only  have  no  evidence  of  its  exist- 
ence in  the  church  the  first  hundred  years  after 
the  Apostles,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  decisive  evi- 
dence against  it,  both  from  Justin  Martyr  and 
Clement  of  Alexandria.  And  finally,  even  the  very 
words,  as  quoted  above  from  the  writings  of  Origen 

*  Neander's  History  of  the  Christian  Church;  vol.  i.  p.  314. 


236  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM 


in  support  of  infant  baptism,  show  that  it  was  a 
new  thing,  full  of  perplexity  to  thoughtful  Chris- 
tians who  found  no  law,  example,  or  explanation 
of  it  in  the  word  of  God  ;  for  they  say  that  it  was 
a  thing  "  upon  what  was  frequently  inquired  about 
among  the  brethren." 

Besides,  it  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  neither  Ter- 
tullian  nor  Cyprian — who  both  lived  almost  at  the 
same  time  with  Origen,  were  strenuous  defenders  of 
the  authority  of  tradition,  and  treated  the  subject  of 
infant  baptism  as  a  matter  of  controversy — anywhere 
in  their  writings  make  any  allusion  whatever  to  an 
apostolical  tradition  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  Is  it 
possible  that  these  Fathers  of  tradition  could  have 
overlooked  so  important  a  point  ?  As  Tertullian 
devised  the  method  of  meeting  the  heretics  with 
the  authority  of  tradition,  would  his  opponents 
have  spared  him  if  these  weapons  of  his  own  could 
have  been  employed  against  him  ? 

But  there  is  a  still  stronger  bearing  of  this  argu- 
ment. Several  practices,  which  are  admitted  by 
all  Protestants  to  have  been  abuses,  were  generally 
received  in  the  church  before  Origen's  time,  and 
expressly  defended  on  the  authority  of  apost<  lie 
tradition.  And  they  came  under  the  rule,  practiced 
always,  everywhere,  and  by  all.  That  is,  they  wore 
universally  practiced,  no  one  calling  them  in  ques- 
tion, and  they  came  down  from  preceding  time,  as 
apostolical  practices.  Such  were  the  customs,  at 
baptism,  of  exorcising  the  devil  from  the  candidate, 


TIIE    THIRD    CENTURY.  239 


smearing  him  with  oil,  giving  him  salt,  milk,  and 
honey,  clothing  him  in  a  white  roue,  and  crowning 
him  with  evergreen  ;  after  baptism,  of  abstaining 
a  whole  week  from  bathing,  which  else  was  done 
daily  ;  the  custom  of  not  kneeling  on  Sunda}rs,  etc.* 
These  practices,  now  rejected  as  innovations,  and 
some  of  them  as  papistic  corruptions,  were  establish- 
ed in  the  church  as  having  descended  by  tradition 
from  the  Apostles,  before  infant  baptism  makes  any 
appearance  in  history.  And  the  fact  that  Tertul- 
lian  defended  these  practices  with  the  apostolical 
tradition,  while  he  opposed  infant  baptism,  is  a 
strong  proof  that  infant  baptism  could  not  be  de- 
fended as  an  apostolical  tradition  in  that  age  of  the 
church,  and  that  it  consequently  was  an  innovation. 

Hence  it  appears  that  even  if  it  could  be  proved 
that  infant  baptism,  in  the  time  of  Origen,  was 
generally  received  as  an  apostolic  tradition,  that 
would  be  no  more  conclusive  as  an  argument  for  it, 
than  it  is  for  the  other  numerous  abuses  at  that 
period  generally  received  in  the  church  as  apos- 
tolical traditions. 

But  since  it  is  evident  that  infant  baptism  was 
not  generally  considered  as  an  apostolical  tradition, 
if  the  passage  in  the  works  of  Origen  quoted  in  de- 
fense of  the  apostolical  origin  of  infant  baptism  ac- 
tually belongs  to  Origen,  and  if  it  means  to  soy 
that  the  church  had  received  a  tradition  from  the 

*  Wall's  ''History  of  Infant  Baptism,"  part  ii.  cb.  9,  sec.  4. 


240  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


Apostles  to  give  baptism  even  to  new-born  chil- 
dren, then  this  statement  must  be  placed  among 
the  many  other  erroneous  opinions  of  Origen. 

This  is  the  conclusion  of  Neander,  who  testifies 
that  Origen's  "expression"  concerning  infant  bap- 
tism "cannot  be  regarded  as  of  much  weight  in 
this  age,  when  the  inclination  was  so  strong  to 
trace  every  institution,  which  was  considered  of 
special  importance,  to  the  Apostles,  and  when  so 
many  walls  of  separation,  hindering  the  freedom  of 
prospect,  had  already  been  set  up  between  this  and 
the  apostolic  age.''* 

2.  But  this  passage  does  not  even  speak  of  new- 
born children.  The  word  iiarvuli,  signifying  those 
children  to  whom  baptism,  according  to  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  church,  should  be  given,  is  elsewhere  in 
the  writings  of  Origen  generally  used  to  designate 
that  part  of  childhood  which  is  subsequent  to  the 
years  of  discretion.  Thus,  for  instance,  in  Homily 
XIX.  of  Luke,  where  Jesus,  when  at  the  age  of 
twelve  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  is  repeatedly 
called  parvulus.  If  it  be  objected  that  the  reason 
assigned  why  children  were  to  be  baptized,  viz., 
their  "native  pollution  of  sin,"  is  applicable  to 
children  from  the  time  of  their  birth,  and  that 
therefore  they  should  be  baptized  immediately  upon 
their  birth  for  the  remission  of  sins,  we  answer  that 
thus   reasoned    the    subsequent   Fathers,  but   not 

*  "  History  of  Christian  Religion,"  vol.  i.  p.  314. 


THE    THIRD    CENTURY.  241 


Origen.  He  taught  that  sin  was  nut  imputed  to 
children  till  they  came  to  the  rears  of  discretion, 
and  that  the}7  then  also  ore  first  capable  of  receiv- 
ing the  grace  of  Christ.*  Further,  his  writings 
contain  no  single  passage  where  the  baptism  of 
unconscious  babes  is  mentioned  ;f  but  many  pas- 
sages showing  that  such  a  baptism  found  no  room 
in  the  system  of  Origen.  The  following  two  pas- 
sages may  serve  for  instances. 

In  his  work  against  Celsus,  (book  iii.  ch.  59),  a 
passage  is  quoted  from  Celsus,  in  which,  after  men- 
tioning what  intelligent  and  respectable  persons 
are  invited  to  initiation  in  the  sacred  myste- 
ries among  the  heathen,  this  bitter  adversary  of 
Christianity  proceeds  thus  :  "  And  now  let  us  hear 
what  persons  the  Christians  invite.  Whoever,  they 
say,  is  a  sinner,  whoever  is  unintelligent,  whoever 
is  a  mere  child,  and,  in  short,  whoever  is  a  misera- 
ble and  contemptible  creature,  the  kingdom  of  God 
shall  receive  him."  Origen  then  subjoins:  "In 
reply  to  these  accusations  we  say,  It  is  one  thing 
to  invite  those  who  are  diseased  in  the  soul  to  a 
healing,  and  it  is  another  to  invite  the  healthy  to  a 
knowledge  and  discernment  of  things  more  divine. 
And  we,  knowing  the  difference,  first  call  men  to  be 

*  See  his  Commentary  on  the  Romans,  book  v.  2. 

f  The  words  occurring  in  the  ninth  nomily  on  Joshua,  "  Et  t* 
fuisti  in/ans  in  LajAismo,"  (and  thou  wast  a  little  child  in  bap- 
tism), do  not  allude  to  little  children  in  age,  but  in  the  disposi- 
tion of  mind.     See  the  "  Christian  Review,"  vol.  six.  p.  195. 

21 


242  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


healed.  We  exhort  sinners  to  come  to  the  instruc- 
tion that  teaches  them  not  to  sin,  and  the  unintelli- 
gent to  come  to  that  which  produces  in  them  under- 
standing, and  the  little  children  to  rise  in  eleva- 
tion of  thought  to  the  man,  and  the  miserable  to 
come  to  a  fortunate,  or  (what  is  more  proper  to 
say),  a  state  of  happiness.  But  when  those  of  the 
exhorted  that  make  progress  show  that  they  have 
been  cleansed  by  the  word,  and,  as  much  as  possi- 
ble, have  lived  a  better  life,  then  we  invite  them  to 
be  initiated  among  us." 

To  be  initiated  among  the  Christians,  it  is  well 
known,  was  to  be  admitted  to  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  In  this  passage  the  testimony  of 
Origen  is  remarkably  explicit.  It  needs  no  length- 
ened comment.  The  reader  himself  sees  at  once 
that  the  "little  children,"  as  well  as  the  rest,  were 
"  exhorted"  in  a  way  adapted  to  their  character ; 
and  "  when  those  of  the  exhorted  who  make  pro- 
gress, show  that  they  have  been  cleansed  by  the 
word,  and  as  much  as  possible  have  lived  a  better 
life,"  then  they  are  admitted  to  baptism.  Celsus 
reproached  the  Christians  for  receiving  to  their 
fellowship  certain  classes  of  the  population,  and 
among  them  children.  Origen  replies  triumphantly 
with  express  reference  to  each  class,  and  states 
when  or  on  what  condition  any  are  admitted. 

Here  we  have  Origen's  own  testimony,  showing 
when  children  were  to  be  baptized.  It  is  worthy 
of  notice  that  this  testimony  occurs  among  the  few 


THE   THIRD    CENTURY.  243 


remains  of  Origen's  works  that  still  exist  in  the 
original,  the  Greek,  and  that  its  authenticity,  con- 
sequently, is  undoubted.  The  natural  conclusion, 
therefore,  is  that,  if  a  passage  in  the  writings  of 
Origen  that  still  exists  in  the  original,  and  whose 
authenticity  is  undoubted,  clearly  shows  that  he 
could  not  have  called  baptism  of  nevj-born  chil- 
dren an  apostolic  tradition,  we  ought  never  to 
quote  in  support  of  infant  baptism  another  passage 
from  his  writings  whose  authenticity  is  doubtful, 
and  where  nothing  is  mentioned  of  baptism  of  un- 
conscious babes. 

Among  the  many  passages  occurring  in  the  Latin 
translations  of  Origen,  which  directly  or  indirectly 
teach  that  children  as  well  as  adults  were  to  be  in- 
structed, and  to  give  evidence  of  having  heeded  the 
Christian  instruction  before  they  were  baptized,  we 
wish  only  to  quote  the  following,  occurring  in  Ho- 
mily XII.,  on  Numbers,  section  4  :  "Let  each  one 
of  the  believers  recall  to  mind  what  words  he  there 
used  at  that  time,  when  he  first  came  to  the  waters 
of  baptism,  when  he  received  the  first  symbols  of 
the  faith,  and  approached  the  salutary  fountain,  and 
how  he  renounced  the  devil,  that  he  would  not  use 
his  pomps,  nor  his  works,  nor  comply  at  all  with 
any  of  his  services  and  pleasures." 

Here  every  one  of  the  believers  was  expected  to 
be  able  to  remember  the  solemn  scene  of  his  bap- 
tism. And  if  each  could  remember  his  own  bap- 
tism, and  what  he  said  and  what  he  did  at  the  time, 


244  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


surely,  he  could  not  then  have  been  a  mere  in- 
fant. 

3.  On  this  historical  question,  there  is  a  most 
excellent  and  elaborate  treatise  by  Ira  Chase,  D.D., 
in  vol.  xix.  of  Christian  Review,  April,  1854,  from 
which  we  have  selected  a  great  deal  of  this  article. 
And  in  conclusion,  we  take  the  liberty  further  to 
add  the  following  remarks  from  the  same  treatise  : 

"  Xow  what  we  maintain  is  that,  if  Origen  speaks, 
in  the  passages  so  often  quoted  as  coming  from 
him,  in  support  of  infant  baptism,  he  ought  to  be 
understood  as  referring  to  the  baptism  of  children 
of  sufficient  age  to  be  conscious  moral  agents.  .  .  . 
"We  have  taken  some  pains  to  ascertain  the  truth. 
"We  have  examined  for  ourselves  the  voluminous 
works  of  Origen,  and  we  have  become  thoroughly 
convinced  that  the  system  of  infant  baptism  adopted 
by  subsequent  ecclesiastical  Fathers  never  entered 
his  mind,  although  some  of  his  speculations  on  the 
pollution  connected  with  nativity,  as  well  as  the 
somewhat  indefinite  statements  attributed  to  him, 
claiming  the  authority  of  apostolical  tradition,  may 
have  greatly  contributed,  at  a  later  period,  to  the 
establishment  of  that  systsm." 

"  The  term  children,"  (parvuli)  "  was  in  itself 
indefinite.  Various  and  strong  influences,  in  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries,  were  constantly  tending 
to  hasten  the  baptism  of  children,  and  make  it 
strictly  and  literally  infant  baptism;  so  that  we 
need  not  wonder  i/  what  Origen,  or  a  reputed  apos- 


THE   THIRD    CENTURY.  246 


tulical  constitution,  had  said  with  some  indefinitenea 
respecting  the  baptism  of  children  in  the  later  por- 
tion of  childhood,  without  precisely  saying  what 
children,  soon  came  to  be  understood  and  used  by 
many  as  sanctioning  the  baptism  of  children  in  their 
earliest  infancy.  Many  words  in  the  lapse  of  time 
have  undergone  a  very  considerable  change  of  sig- 
nification in  consequence  of  change  in  the  customs 
of  the  people. 

u  Pedobaptism,  in  the  most  ancient  sense  of  the 
word,  the  baptism  of  children  capable  of  profess- 
ing their  faith  in  Christ,  passed  gradually,  and  in 
different  countries  more  or  less  rapidly,  though 
with  comparative  silence,  into  infant  baptism  in 
the  more  modern  sense,  the  baptism  of  new-born 
babes.  For  the  most  part,  historical  light  in  regard 
to  the  primitive  churches  shone  but  dimly.  It  is 
not  strange,  if  even  the  acute  and  powerful  Augus- 
tine sometimes  has  his  vision  obscured  in  the  heat 
and  dust  of  controversv.  We  are  not  at  all  sur- 
prised  at  the  manner  in  which  he,  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, used  the  word  paruulus,  while,  with  consum- 
mate skill  and  energy,  he  confirmed  and  made 
triumphant,  in  Africa  and  elsewhere,  that  system  of 
infant  baptism  which,  according  to  the  most  reliable 
evidence,  began  to  be  authoritatively  established  in 
that  country  by  the  ardent  and  popular  Cyprian, 
about  the  middle  of  the  third  century/'  So  far  Dr. 
Chase. 

4.  On  this  question  a  new  light  has  also  been 
21* 


246  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


thrown  through  the  recent  discovery  of  a  lost 
work  of  Hippolytus,  Bishop  of  Portus,  near  Rome 
(198-236  after  Christ).  The  result  of  this  dis- 
covery is  thus  stated  by  the  Prussian  Minister, 
Chevalier  Bunsen :  "  Pedobaptisra  in  the  more 
modern  sense — meaning  thereby  the  baptism  of 
new-born  infants  with  the  vicarious  promises  of  pa- 
rents or  sponsors — was  utterly  unknown  in  the 
early  church,  not  only  down  to  the  end  of  the 
second,  but  indeed  to  the  middle  of  the  third  cen- 
tury. ...  As  in  other  cases,  the  origin  was  inno- 
cent, and  I  think  that  we  are  at  this  moment  better 
able  than  the  defenders  or  opposers  of  infant  bap- 
tism hitherto  have  been,  to  explain  how  it  origin- 
ated. A  passage  in  our  Alexandrian  church-book 
gives  the  true  explanation  of  the  assertion  of  Ori- 
gen,  himself  an  Alexandrian,  that  the  baptism  of 
children  was  an  apostolical  tradition,  and  it  re- 
moves the  origin  of  infant  baptism  from  Tertullian 
and  Hippolytus  to  the  end  of  our  present  period — 
Cyprian  being  the  first  Father  who,  impelled  by  a 
fanatical  enthusiasm,  and  assisted  by  a  bad  inter- 
pretation of  the  Old  Testament,  established  it  as  a 
principle."  And  again,  in  another  passage,  says 
Bunsen  :  "  Tertulliau's  opposition  is  to  the  baptism 
of  young  growing  children,  he  does  not  say  one 
word  about  new-born  infants.  Neither  does  Orige?i, 
ichen  his  expressions  are  accurately  weighed."* 

*  "Hippolytus  and  his  Age,"  London,  1852,  vol.  3,  pp.  ISO, 
192,  195. 

The  celebrated  Dr.  Kitto,  in  hie  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature, 


THE    THIRD    CENTURY.  247 


CYPRIAN. 

The  next  church  Father  whose  writings  treat 
on  the  subject  of  Baptism  is  Cyprian,  Bishop  of 
Carthage,  in  North  Africa,  about  the  middle  of 
the  third  century.  In  the  year  253,  a  Council 
convened  at  Carthage  to  consult  on  various  ques- 
tions of  doctrine  and  discipline.  Among  other 
matters,  a  country  bishop,  Fidus,  proposed  the 
question  whether  it  were  lawful  to  baptize  infants 
immediately  upon  their  birth,  or  whether  baptism 
might  not  always  be  deferred  to  the  eighth  day,  as 
in  the  case  of  circumcision  ?  The  answer  given 
by  the  Council  on  this  question  is  inserted  in  the 
writings  of  Cyprian,  and  contains  chiefly  the  fol- 
lowing points  : 

Baptism  was  to  be  given  to  infants  immediately 
upon  their  birth.  1.  "Because  the  Son  of  Man 
came  not  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them." 
2.  Because,  "  as  far  as  lies  in  us,  no  soul  is  to  be 
lost."  3.  Because  "  the  Scriptures  teach  the  equality 
of  infants  and  adults  in  respect  to  the  divine  gifts. 
This  is  proved  by  the  circumstance  that  the  prophet 
ElisLa,  in  his  prayer  to  God,  stretched  himself  on 
the  infant  son  of  the  Shunamite  woman,  that  lay 
dead,  in  such  manner  that  his  head,  and  face,  and 

b:\sgiven  the  weight  of  his  authority  to  the  same  conclusion; 
und  the  North  British  Review  has  frankly  confessed  that  "the 
correctness  of  the  picture  of  ancient  baptism  given  by  Bunsen, 
will,  we  apprehend,  not  be  disputed  by  any  man,  who  is  content 
to  accept  the  mere  fact  of  the  case." 


24.8  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


limbs,  and  feet,  were  applied  to  the  head,  face,  limbs, 
and  feet  of  the  child,  which  signified  a  spiritual 
equality,  that  all  men  are  equal,  when  they  are 
once  made  by  God."(!)  4.  Therefore,  "none  was 
to  be  hindered  from  baptism  and  the  grace  of 
God" — least  of  all  "  infants,  persons  newly  born,  to 
whom  our  help  and  the  divine  mercy  is  rather  to 
be  granted,  because  by  their  weeping  and  wailing 
at  their  first  entrance  into  the  world  they  do  noth- 
ing else  but  supplicate  it."  5.  As  to  the  scruple  of 
giving  the  new-born  child  the  kiss  of  brotherhood 
after  baptism,*  because  it  was  considered  legally  un- 
clean the  first  days  after  birth,  that  this  "  ought  not 
to  hinder  the  giving  to  it  the  heavenly  grace.  For 
it  is  written,  To  the  clean  all  things  are  clean  ;  and 
Peter  said  :  The  Lord  has  shown  me  that  no  per- 
son is  to  be  called  common  or  unclean."  6.  "  In  the 
New  Testament  it  was  not  necessary  to  baptize 
children  on  the  eighth  day,  for  the  eighth  day  of 
the  Jewish  circumcision  was  a  type  of  the  Christian 
Sabbath,  which  type  ceased  when  the  substance  was 
come."* 

Such  were  the  principles  on  which  the  Fathers 
at  that  Council  established  the  baptism  of  new- 
born children  in  Carthage  and  its  vicinity — at  least 
where  there  was  immediate  danger  of  death.     Not 

•  An  ancient  custom,  which  it  was  thought  necessary  to  ob- 
serve. 

f  See  the  original  in  "Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism/' 
part  1,  ch.  6,  §  1. 


THE   THIRD   CENTURY.  249 


a  word  is  mentioned  of  any  direction  of  the  Lord 
or  the  Apostles  concerning  either  infant  baptism 
itself,  or  any  circumstances  connected  therewith  ; 
no  allusion  is  made  to  any  example  of  the  Apos.- 

tles  ;  not  a  word  of  any  apostolical  tradition  concern- 
ing either  infant  baptism  itself,  or  the  special  case 
now  in  question.  Can,  therefore,  any  enlightened 
Christian  imagine  that,  if  infant  baptism  from  the 
beginning  had  been  considered  as  an  apostolic  rite, 
the  decision  of  this  Council  concerning  it  would  not 
have  been  grounded  on  other  and  better  arguments 
than  these  ?  Would  there  not  have  been  at  least 
an  allusion  to  the  order  pursued  by  the  Apostles 
in  the  case  ? 

There  is  another  circumstance  here  fatal  to  infant 
baptism  ;  it  is  infant  communion,  or  the  custom  of  ad- 
ministering the  Lord's  Supper  to  infants,  which  is 
also  mentioned  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian.  If  it, 
therefore,  is  asked  how  it  was  possible  for  infant  bap- 
tism, if  it  was  indeed  a  corruption  introduced  subse- 
quently to  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  to  begin  so  early, 
become  so  universal,  last  so  long,  and  leave  no  record 
of  its  origin,  we  answer  that  infant  communion,  which 
all  admit  to  be  a  corruption,  was  introduced  as  early, 
grew  up  as  silently,  became  as  general,  and  lasted 
for  about  a  thousand  years  in  the  Roman  church, 
and  is  still  existing  in  the  whole  Greek  church.  In- 
fant baptism  was  at  that  time  not  only  attended 
by  this  abuse,  but  at  the  same  time  also  are  men- 
tioned sponsors,  consecration  of  the  baptismal  water, 


250  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


prayers  and  offerings  for  the  dead,  monkery  and 
nunnery,  as  existing  in  the  same  churches.  Already 
in  Irenaeus  and  Justin  Martyr,  we  find  traces  of  the 
worship  of  angels  and  the  supremacy  of  Rome  ;  in 
Cyprian,  Tertullian,  and  Origen,  are  likewise  found 
traces  of  the  Pope's  supremacy,  the  worship  of  the 
Virgin,  of  purgatory,  etc.* 

TESTIMONIES. 

Keander  :  "  When  now on  the  other 

hand,  from  the  want  of  duly  distinguishing  between 
what  is  outward  and  what  is  inward  in  baptism — 
the  baptism  by  water,  and  the  baptism  by  the 
Spirit — the  opinion  became  more  firmly  established, 
that  without  external  baptism  no  one  could  be  de- 
livered from  that  inherent  guilt,  could  be  saved 
from  the  everlasting  punishment  that  threatened 
him,  or  raised  to  eternal  life  ;  and  when  the  notion 
of  a  magical  influence,  a  charm  connected  with  the 
sacraments,  continually  gained  ground,  the  theory 
was  finally  evolved  of  the  unconditional  necessity 
of  infant  baptism.  About  the  middle  of  the  third 
century  this  theory  was  generally  admitted  in  the 
North  African  church.  .  .  .  But  while  in  theory 
the  necessity  of  infant  baptism  was  admitted,  still  in 
practice  it  was  very  far  from  being  generally  pre- 
vailing."*)* 

*  Suiceri  Thesaurus  Eccl.,  torn.  1,  pp.  653,  654;  Neander's  Ch. 
Hist.,  vol.  I,  pp.  314,  315,  333,  646— vol.  2,  pp.  319,  320;  and 
Newman's  "Theory  of  Development." 

f  Church  Hist,  vol  1,  pp.  313,  314— Torrey's  translation. 


THE    THIRD    CENTURY.  251 


RHETNWALD  :  "  The  first  traces  of  infant  baptism 
are  found  in  the  Western  church  after  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  and  it  was  the  subject  of  con- 
troversy in  proconsular  Africa  toward  the  end  of 
this  century.  Though  its  necessity  was  asserted  in 
Africa  and  Egypt  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, it  was,  even  to  the  end  of  the  fourth  century, 
by  no  means  universally  observed — least  of  all  in 
the  Eastern  church.  Notwithstanding  the  recom- 
mendation of  it  by  Fathers,  it  never  became  a  gene- 
ral ecclesiastical  institution  till  the  age  of  Augus- 
tine."* 

GrERiCKE  :  "  Already  in  the  third  century  the 
necessity  of  infant  baptism  was  in  theory  pretty 
commonly  acknowledged,  but  it  was  not  until  about 
the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  that  the  exhortations 
to  its  observance,  given  by  the  most  distinguished 
church  teachers,  led,  with  the  greatest  difficulty,  to 
its  being  carried  out  in  practice  in  the  East."f 

Doddridge  :  "Cyprian  is  allowed  by  all  to  speak 
expressly  of  infant  baptism  as  generally  used  in  the 
church  ;  but  it  is  justly  answered,  that  he  speaks  as 
expressly  of  infant  communion  in  the  Eucharist,  and 
that,  consequently,  the  divine  original  of  the  latter 
may  as  well  be  argued  from  him  as  that  of  the  for- 
mer, yet  almost  all  Pedobaptists  allow  that  to  be 
an  innovation.''^ 

*  Chr.  Review,  vol.  3,  p.  193. 

f  Handbuch  der  Kirchengeshichte,  6te  auft.,  1  b.,  s.  356. 

j  Miscell.  Works,  p.  494. 


SECTION  y. 

BAPTISM   IN    THE    FOURTH   AND    FIITH   CENTURIES. 

TnAT  infant  baptism  has  not  an  apostolic  origin, 
is  further  evident  from  its  very  gradual  introduction 
into  the  Catholic  church.  For  while  it  seems  to 
have  been  prevailing  in  the  North  African  church, 
in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  we  have  sufficient 
evidence  that  it  cannot  have  been  generally  prac- 
ticed in  the  Greek  church  until  over  a  hundred 
years  after.  For  Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  was 
Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  and  in  his  time  en- 
joyed the  greatest  authority  of  any  man  in  all 
Christendom,  shows  in  an  oration,  delivered  in  the 
cathedral  of  Constantinople  about  the  year  A.  D. 
360,  that  infant  baptism  in  the  Greek  church  was 
not  yet  received  as  a  general  custom.  He  writes, 
"  But,  say  some,  what  is  your  opinion  of  infants  who 
are  not  capable  of  judging  either  of  the  grace  of 
baptism,  or  of  the  damage  sustained  by  the  want  of 
it ;  shall  we  baptize  them,  too  ?  By  all  means,  if 
there  be  any  apparent  clanger.  For  it  were  better 
they  were  sanctified  without  their  knowing  it,  than 
that  they  should  die  without  being  sealed  and  initi- 
(252) 


FOURTH    AND    FIFTH    CEXTURIE3.         253 


ated.  As/o/'  others,  I  give  my  opinion,  that  when 
they  are  three  years  of  age  or  thereabout  (for  then 
they  are  able  to  hear  and  answer  some  of  the  mys- 
tical words,  and  although  they  do  not  fully  under- 
stand, they  may  receive  impressions),  they  may  be 
sanctified  both  soul  and  body  by  the  great  mystery 
of  initiation."* 

This  needs  no  comment.  It  shows  most  clearly 
that  infant  baptism  in  the  Greek  church  at  this 
time  was  a  new  affair,  unsettled  by  law,  human  or 
divine,  and  that  baptism  of  new-born  children  was 
yet  far  from  being  there  a  general  practice. 

A  similar  testimony  is  also  given  by  Basil  the 
Great,  Bishop  of  Coesarea,  who,  in  a  speech  to  his 
catechumens  about  the  year  375,  expresses  himself 
thus:  "Do  you  demur,  and  loiter,  and  put  off? 
When  you  have  been  from  a  child  catechised  in  the 
word,  are  you  not  yet  come  to  the  knowledge  of  it  ? 
A  seeker  all  your  life  long !  A  considerer  till  you 
are  old  !  When  will  you  be  made  a  Christian? 
"When  shall  we  see  you  become  one  of  us  ?  Last 
year  you  were  for  staying  till  this  year,  and  now 
you  have  a  mind  to  stay  till  next.  Take  heed  that 
by  promising  yourself  a  longer  life  you  do  not  quite 
miss  of  your  hope.  You  do  not  know  what  change 
to-morrow  may  bring,  f 

This  passage,  too,  shows   evidently  that  infant 

*  Wall's  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bapt.,  part  1,  cb.  11,  §  7. 
f  Ibid.,  part  1,  cb.  12,  \\  %  4- 


254  CHMSTIAN   BAPTISM. 


baptism  was  far  from  being  general  at  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century.  For  notwithstanding  the  opin- 
ion of  Dr.  Wall,  that  the  hearers  of  Basil  were 
children  not  of  Christians,  but  of  unbaptized  hea- 
thens, it  is  yet  evident  that  a  part  at  least  were  the 
children  of  Christians.  For  else  how  could  he  say, 
"  You  have  been  from  a  child  catechised  in  the 
word."  Did  pagans  so  bring  up  their  children  ? 
Did  they  teach  them  that  the  Bible  was  the  Book 
of  God  ?  Did  they  introduce  them  to  a  Saviour  in 
whom  they  did  not  believe.  Further,  itisto  be  ob- 
served, that  this  speech  was  delivered  seventy  years 
after  the  accession  of  Constantine.  This  passage 
from  Basil,  therefore,  is  alone  sufficient  to  show 
that  in  the  fourth  century  infant  baptism  was  by 
no  means  general. 

The  very  gradual  introduction  of  infant  baptism 
is  further  proved  by  the  fact,  that  no  evidence 
appears  that  any  of  the  distinguished  church  teachers 
of  this  period  were  baptized  in  infancy.  Indeed, 
there  is  evidence  that  several  of  them  were  not, 
though  born  of  Christian  parents.  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen,  born  of  Christian  parents,  was  not  baptized 
till  at  the  age  of  thirty,  at  the  time  when  his  father 
was  elected  bishop.  The  parents  and  grandparents 
of  Basil  the  Great  were  persons  of  most  dis- 
tinguished piety,  yet  he  was  not  baptized  in  in- 
fancy. He  was  baptized  at  an  advanced  age,  and 
ordained  by  the  same  man — his  predecessor  as 
bishop.     The  parents  of   Cbrysostom  were   also 


FOUBTH   AND   FIFTH    CENTURIES.        255 


Christians  at  his  birth,  and  he  was  educated   I  y 

Miletus,  a  bishop,  yet  he  was  not  baptized  till 
twenty-one.  Jerome,  likewise  born  of  Christian 
parents,  was  baptized  at  the  age  of  thirty-one.  etc.* 
Pelagius  has  been  appealed  to  as -a  witness  of 
great  moment  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  because, 
in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Zozimus,  of  Rome,  he  is  said 
to  have  deelared,  that  he  "never  had  heard  of  any, 
not  even  the  most  impious  heretic,  who  denied  the 
baptism  of  infants."  This  testimony,  however,  is  not 
worthy  of  any  attention,  in  the  first  place,  because 
the  passage  quoted  in  the  original  is  indistinct,  and 
has  been  subject  to  various  interpretations  ;■{•  and 
secondly,  because  such  a  declaration  would  contra- 
dict all  historical  truth.  For  several  heretical  sects, 
earlier  and  contemporary  with  Pelagius,  denied  all 
baptism,  and  of  course  denied  the  baptism  of  infants. 
And  many  orthodox  sects  who  held  to  baptism, 
denied  it  to  infants.  Tertullian,  as  has  been  shown, 
was  opposed  to  it.  And  Xeander  shows  that  "  simi- 
lar difficulties,"  as  those  of  Tertullian,  were  urged 
against  it  in  Origen's  time.  Julian,  who  belonged 
to  the  party  of  Pelagius,  says :  "  I  have  written 
against  those  who  suppose  baptism  not  needful  for 
children."     The  Council  of  Carthage,  418,  at  which 

*  Wall,  part  2,  eh.  3;  comp.  Chr.  Review,  vol.  13,  pp.  216, 
21^;  Grotine  Comment,  on  Matt.  xix.  14. 

f  The  '.vords  in  the  original  are  as  follows:  "  >~umqup.m  se 
vel  iinpium  ;:iiquein  beretieum  audis^e  qui  hoc  quod  prnposuit 
<1<*  parvulis  dieeret"—  Wall,  p^rt  1,  cb.  19.  ?  30. 


256  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


Augustine  was  present,  decreed  :  "  Whoever  denies 
that  children  just  born  are  to  be  baptized,  let  him 
be  anathema."  Was  this  curse  hurled  at  nobody? 
Augustine  says:  "Men  are  accustomed  to  ask  of 
what  benefit  is  baptism  to  infants  ?"  Chrysostom 
complained  that  most  persons  neglected  to  baptize 
their  children  ;  Jerome  speaks  of  those  who  refused 
to  give  baptism  to  their  children,  etc.*  Under  such 
circumstances,  how  is  it  possible  that  such  an  utter- 
ance as  is  ascribed  to  Pelagius  can  be  of  any  weight 
as  an  evidence  for  infant  baptism  ? 

We  now  arrive  at  Augustine,  the  chief  defender 
and  promoter  of  infant  baptism  in  his  time.  This 
man  more  than  once  declares  infant  baptism  to  be 
a  rite  descended  from  the  Apostles.  But  how  little 
this  assertion  is  to  be  relied  on,  appears  from  the 
fact  that  such  men  as  Wiggers  and  Xeander,  who 
have  closely  investigated  the  whole  history  from  the 
original  sources  concerning  Augustine  and  his  con- 
temporaries, do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  it  an  un- 
founded assumption  ;  and  that  Augustine  also,  with 
the  apostolic  tradition,  seeks  to  prove  the  necessity 
of  administering  the  Lord's  Supper  to  infants.  This 
may  be  seen  in  the  following  passage  quoted  by  Dr. 
Wall :  "  The  Christians  of  Africa  do  well  call  bap- 
tism itself,  one's  salvation,  and  the  sacrament  of 
Christ's  body,  one's  life.  From  whence  is  this  but, 
as  I  suppose,  from  that  ancient  and  apostolical  tra- 

*  See  on  all  this,  Wall,  part  2,  ch.  5 ;  "Wigger's  Augustinism 
and  Pelagianisni,  pp.  65,  171;  Chr.  Review,  vol.  3,  p.  216. 


FOURTH    AND    FIFTH    CENTURIES.         257 


dition,  by  which  the  churches  of  Christ  do  naturally 
hold  that  without  baptism  and  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  table,  no  one  can  come  either  to  the  kingdom 
of  God,  or  to  salvation  and  eternal  life  ?  If,  then, 
neither  salvation  nor  eternal  life  is  to  be  hoped  for 
by  any  without  baptism  and  (he  body  and  blood  of 
our  Lord,  it  is  in  vain  promised  to  infants  without 
them."* 

As  a  misunderstanding  of  those  words  of  Christ, 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,-'  seems  to 
have  introduced  infant  baptism  into  the  Christian 
church  ;  so  from  a  like  mistake  of  those  other  words 
of  Christ,  "Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
man,  and  drink  his  blood,  you  have  no  life  in  you/' 
the  participation  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  sup- 
posed to  be  necessary  to  eternal  life. 

On  this  latter  passage  Augustine  says :  "Let  us 
hear  the  Lord,  I  say,  who  is  not  now  speaking  of 
the  sacrament  of  the  holy  laver,  but  of  the  sacra- 
ment of  His  holy  table,  to  which  none  may  regu- 
larly approach  before  he  is  baptized;  '  Except  ye 
eat  my  flesh  and  drink  my  blood,  you  shall  have  no 
life  in  you.'  What  would  you  have  more  ?  What 
answer  can  any  one  make  to  this,  unless  he  will  per- 
tinaciously set  himself  to  fight  against  the  utmost 
evidence  of  truth  ?  Will  any  man  dare  to  say  this 
passage  belongs  not  to  infants,  and  that  they  may 

Wail,  part  2,  ch.  9,  \  15. 
22* 


258  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISMS 


have  life  in  themselves  without  the  participation  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood."* 

In  another  place,  Augustine  endeavors  to  prove 
that  infants  cannot  be  saved  without  baptism,  be- 
cause till  they  are  baptized  they  cannot  partake  of 
the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  Christ  says,  None  can 
have  life  in  them,  except  they  eat  his  flesh  and  drink 
his  blood.  For  when  he  speaks  of  his  opposers  he 
thus  expresses  himself:  "But  if  they  have  any 
deference  for  the  apostolic  seat,  or  rather,  for  the 
Lord  and  Master  of  the  Apostles,  who  says,  that 
none  shall  have  life  in  themselves,  unless  they  eat 
the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood, 
which  they  cannot  do  without  being  baptized,  they 
will  one  day  confess  that  infants  unbaptized  can- 
not have  life."t 

From  hence  we  perceive  that  infant  communion, 
at  the  time  of  Augustine,  was  considered  as  neces- 
sary, if  not  more  indispensable  to  salvation  than  in- 
fant baptism.  And  undoubtedly  they  had  just  as 
good  reason  to  give  the  Lord's  Supper  to  infants  as 
baptism.   (See  pp.  148,  149.) 

In  the  time  of  Augustine,  care  was  taken  that 
infant  baptism,  by  synodal  decrees,  should  be  gener- 
ally received  as  a  legitimate  rite  in  the  Catholic  or 
established  church.  In  the  year  416,  a  Synod  was 
held  at  Mileve  of  Africa,  in  which  Agustine  pre- 

*  Aug.  de  Peceator.  Meritis  &  Remiss.  lib.  1,  c.  20. 
f  Aug.  contra  Pelagianos,  Epist.  106. 


FOURTH   AND    FIFTH    CEKTUBIES.        209 


sided.  At  this  synod  the  following  decision  was 
made  with  respect  to  infant  baptism  :  "  Also  it  is 
the  pleasure  of  the  bishops  to  order  that  whoever 
denieth  that  infants  newly  born  of  their  mothers  are 
to  be  baptized,  or  saith  that  baptism  is  administered 
for  the  remission  of  their  own  sins,  but  not  on 
account  of  original  sins  derived  from  Adam,  and 
to  be  expiated  by  the  layer  of  regeneration,  be  ac- 
cursed."* 

Also  in  the  year  -US  a  Council  was  held  at  Car- 
thage, where  the  anathema  was  pronounced  against 
the  doctrine  of  the  intermediate  state  (between  con- 
demnation and  salvation,  which  doctrine  some  de- 
fended) of  unbaptized  children  deceased,  because  no 
such  thing  could  be  conceived  of  as  a  middle  place 
between  the  kingdom  of  God  and  condemnation. 
15nt  "thereby,"  Neander  remarks,  "  according  to 
the  decision  of  that  Council,  the  denunciation  of 
everlasting  condemnation  was  pronounced  on  all 
unbaptized  children — a  consequence  of  the  error 
shocking  all  human  feeling. ''f 

After  these  Councils,  and  a  third  General  Council 
at  Ephesus,  A.D.  431,  where  the  positions  of  Angus- 
tine  were  established  as  the  general  doctrine  of  the 
Catholic  church,  we  find  within  that  church  no  Ter- 
tuiiians  opposing  infant  baptism,  or  Naziai 
counseling  delay.  Since  the  Emperors  Tbeodosius 
and  Honorious  had  enacted  a  law — A.  D.  -113 — 

'  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  p.  21  j. 
Gescb  der  Christ!.  Eel,  u.  Kirch*?,  2  h.,  3  abch..  s.  IZJo. 


260  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


which  forbade  all  anabaplism  in  the  empire,  under 
the  penalty  of  death,  we  would  hardly  expect  any 
Catholic  churchman  to  be  bold  enough  to  impugn 
infant  baptism.  Similar  sanguinary  laws  were  in 
force  wherever  the  Church  of  Rome  had  power  in 
subsequent  ages.  Hence  flowed  the  blood  of  my- 
riads of  Christian  martyrs  !  Hence,  too,  the  de- 
struction of  their  schools  and  books !  Hence, 
lastly,  the  odious  calumnies  heaped  upon  their 
names  in  all  times  ! 

But  notwithstanding  these  sanguinary  and  deso- 
lating persecutions,  there  have  been  found  in  all 
ages,  from  that  time  to  the  Reformation,  not  only 
individual  sincere  disciples  of  Christ,  but  Christian 
churches  that  have  been  faithful  to  the  truth,  and 
have  rejected  the  errors  and  abuses  of  the  estab- 
lished church.  Those  have  been  known  under 
various  names,  as  Cathari  or  Xovatianists,  Lucife- 
rians,  Aerians,  Vigilantians,  Paulicians,  Paterines, 
Gundulphians,  Albigenses,  Lollards,  the  early  Wal- 
denses,  etc.,  with  whom  we  have  found  no  trace  of 
infant  baptism,  but  much  testimony  on  the  contrary. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  a  sect  stood  up 
which  often  has  been  confounded  with  the  Baptists, 
viz.,  the  Munsterian  Anabaptists.  That  the  Bap- 
tists of  our  time  stand  in  no  connection  with  those 
Anabaptists,  must,  however,  be  conceded  by  every 
one  who  is  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Bap- 
tists. This  also  has  lately  been  acknowledged  by 
Merle  D'Aubigne,  author  of  the  celebrated  work, 


FOURTH   AND   FIFTH   CENTURIES.         2G1 


"  The  History  of  the  Reformation.''  In  the  preface 
of  this  work  he  says :  "  There  is  an  error  concerning 
the  Baptists  that  has  misled  many.  They  have 
imagined  that  the  Anabaptists  in  the  time  of  the 
Reformation  and  the  Baptists  of  our  days  are  the 
same.  But  they  are  two  sects,  both  as  to  their 
doctrine  and  history,  and  are  as  different  as  pos- 
sible." 

The  Baptists  of  England  descended  from  the 
old  Lollards,  who  rejected  infant  baptism,  and 
already  in  the  year  1339,  had  spread  so  far  in  that 
country,  that  a  great  part  of  the  English  nation 
then  was  on  their  side.  After  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  they  were  branded  in  England  by 
the  opprobrious  appellation  of  "Anabaptists,"  and 
often  cruelly  and  murderously  persecuted. 

About  the  year  1630,  the  Baptists  were  trans- 
planted from  England  to  America,  where  they 
have  rapidly  increased,  and  number  at  present, 
together  with  their  families,  about  six  millions  of 
souls.  In  this  land  infant  baptism  more  and  more 
falls  into  desuetude,  even  among  the  most  pious 
Pedobaptists  of  the  different  denominations,  and 
many  modern  Chrysostoms  make  in  vain  a  loud 
complaint  that  "  most  persons  neglect  to  baptize 
their  infants."  This  is  a  natural  consequence  of  a 
more  intimate  and  general  acquaintance  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible. 

The  history  of  the  Church,  too,  furnishes  the 
most  incontestible  evidence  that  as  infant  baptism 


262  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


made  a  more  prominent  figure  in  proportion  as 
the  church  grew  more  benighted  and  corrupted,  so 
it  has,  on  the  other  hand,  since  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  in  spite  of  every  effort  to  maintain 
it,  lost  its  hold  and  fallen  into  disuse  in  proportion 
as  the  pure  doctrines  of  the  Bible  and  true  piety- 
have  gained  a  footing  among  professors  of  Chris- 
tianity. This  is  the  case  especially  where  no  privi- 
leged and  oppressing  State  Church,  with  its  hier- 
archy, allurements,  and  rewards,  on  the  one  hand, 
or  threatenings  and  punishments  on  the  other,  have 
extended  a  blinding  and  corrupting  influence  over 
the  minds  of  the  people,  but  every  one  has  been 
left  entirely  free  and  unbiased  to  follow  his  own 
convictions,  grounded  only  on  the  Bible. 


SECTION  VI. 

TESTIMONY    OF    CHURCH    HISTORY    WITH   ESPECIAL 
REFERENCE   TO    THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

We  hope  that  every  one  who  has  attentively  and 
without  prejudice  examined  the  testimony  of  the 
New  Testament  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  has 
already  found  that  all  the  baptisms  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament,  were  administered  by  immer- 
sion. We  have  likewise  found  that  several  of  the 
church  Fathers,  as  Justin  Martyr,  (p.  219),  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  (p.  227),  Tertullian,  (p.  229), 
Jerome,  (p.  41),  and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  (p.  121), 
have  left  a  unanimous  and  decisive  testimony,  that 
immersion  was  the  generally  received  custom  of 
the  primitive  church.  It  would  be  a  superfluous,  as 
well  as  an  endless  undertaking,  to  quote  all  the 
testimonies  from  the  Fathers  which  testify  the 
same,  while  no  testimony  can  be  adduced  speaking  of 
any  other  mode  until  the  middle  of  the  third  cen- 
tury.* And  the  instance  of  a  different  mode  then 
occurring  is  of  a  nature  that  only  serves  to  estab- 
lish the   truth  that  immersion  was  the   mode  pre- 

■  Wall,  part  2,  eh.  ix.  sec  2. 

(263) 


264  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


scribed  by  our  Lord.  That  instance  is  stated  in  a 
letter  by  the  church  historian,  Eusebius,  where  it 
is  related  that  Novatian  was  baptized  on  his  bed, 
because  he  thought  himself  to  be  near  to  death. 
The  narrative  of  this  case  reads  thus  :  "  Who  re- 
ceived [baptism]  being  poured  round  (yerikytheis) 
on  the  bed  on  which  he  lay  ;  if,  indeed,  it  is  proper 
to  say  that  such  a  one  could  receive  [baptism]." 
It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  it  is  here  questioned 
whether  this  could  be  called  baptism,  which  doubt 
is  only  an  echo  of  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  this 
time.  For  in  the  same  letter  it  reads  further : — 
"  Since  he  had  received  baptism,  he  obtained  the 
rank  of  the  presbytery  by  the  favor  of  the  bishop, 
who  by  the  imposition  of  hands  initiated  him 
as  presbyter.  Since  he  had  been  denied  [the  initia- 
tion] by  the  whole  clergy  and  many  of  the  laity — . 
because  it  was  not  lawful  for  any  one  that  had  been 
poured  round  (perikytheis)  in  his  bed  because  of 
sickness,  as  he  had  been,  to  be  admitted  to  any 
office  of  the  clergy — the  bishop  asked  for  permis- 
sion to  initiate  this  person  only."* 

To  this  passage  there  is  a  note  of  Yalesius, 
editor  of  the  Ancient  Ecclesiastical  Historians,  on 
the  word  (perikytheis),  reading  thus:  "Rufinus 
rightly  translated  this  perfusum,  (poured  about). 
For  those  who  were  sick  were  baptized  in  bed, 
since  they  could  not  be  immersed  by  the  priest, 

*  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  vi.  cap.  43. 


THE    MODE — TESTIMONY    OF   HISTORY.     2G5 


they  were  only  poured  about  (jierfundebantur) 
with  water. ';* 

Nothing  can  be  more  striking  as  evidence  that 
immersion  was  deemed  the  only  legitimate  baptism 
except  in  cases  of  the  greatest  emergency,  than  the 
expression  used  by  Eusebius — perikytheis — poured 
about — clearly  an  application  of  water  to  the  body 
generally,  and  not  to  the  face  only.  This  mode 
was  adopted  in  order  to  render  the  baptism  in 
question  as  effectual  and  valid  as  possible,  the  body 
being,  as  in  immersion,  on  all  sides  surrounded  with 
water. 

All  other  exceptions  occurring  in  ancient  times 
are  upon  the  principle  of  danger  of  death,  or  other 
absolute  necessity,  and  do  therefore  but  confirm  the 
rule.  When  the  belief  was  prevalent  that  man  could 
not  escape  the  fire  of  hell  in  any  other  way  than  by 
water  baptism,  it  was  quite  natural  that  men  should 
try  in  any  possible  way  to  apply  the  water  to  the 
body,  at  the  same  time  reciting  the  formula  of  bap- 
tism. But  the  fact  that  in  ancient  times  they  were 
not  contented  with  sprinkling  in  the  face  or  pouring 
on  the  head,  but  poured  water  all  over  the  body,  goes 
far  to  prove  the  primitive  and  only  true  mode  of 
baptism  to  have  been  immersion.  Yet  this 
11  necessity-baptism"'  of  the  Fathers,  enforced  from 
fear  of  hell-fire,  has  caused  primitive  baptism  to 
be  entirely  abolished  throughout  the  greatest  part 
of  Christendom. 

*  Annot.  in  loco. 

23 


266  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


Except  in  such  an  absolute  necessity  or  imminent 
clanger  of  death,  we  have  an  unbroken  chain  of 
evidence  showing  that  baptism  for  thirteen  hundred 
years  was  performed  by  immersion,  and  by  immer- 
sion only.  Never  and  nowhere  in  Christendom 
was  sprinkling  or  pouring  allowed  in  ordinary  cases, 
until  the  Council  of  Ravenna,  assembled  by  the 
Pope  in  1311 ;  and  not  earlier  than  in  the  sixteenth 
century  was  pouring  received  as  the  general  custom 
of  the  Roman  church,  which  is  clearly  proved  by 
the  rituals  of  that  church.  At  the  same  period, 
pouring  and  sprinkling  also  began  to  be  received 
in  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches. 

Yet,  even  at  the  present  time  immersion  con- 
tinues to  prevail,  as  the  only  true  mode,  in  the 
whole  Greek  church — containing  about  sixty  mil- 
lions of  Christians — and  in  many  other  denomina- 
tions over  which  the  Papacy  has  not  exerted  its 
influence.  With  respect  to  the  views  of  the  Greek 
church  concerning  the  necessity  of  immersion, 
P.  Bicauf,  Esq.,  observes: 

"  Thrice  dipping  or  plunging  this  church  holds 
to  be  as  necessary  to  the  form  of  baptism  as  water 
to  the  matter.*  In  the  East  there  are,  besides, 
various  religious  communities,  which  in  consequence 
of  an  early  secession  from  the  established  church, 
are  connected  neither  with  the  Greek  or  the  Roman 
church,  as   the    Nestorians,  Armenians,  Jacobites, 

*  Ricaut's  "Present  State  of  the  Grc.'k  and  Armenian 
Churche*/*  p.  lfi. 


THE    MODE— TESTIMONY    OF   HISTORY.     26' 


Christians  in  Asia,  Georgians,  African  Jacobites, 
Copts,  and  Abyssinians,  who  all  yet  observe  inimer- 
fcion  as  the  invariable  and  necessary  custom. 

testimonies. 
Dr.  Philip  Schaff  :  "  As  to  the  outward  mode 
of  administering  this  ordinance,  immersion,  and 
not  sprinkling,  was  unquestionably  the  original 
normal  form.  This  is  shown  by  the  very  meaning 
of  the  Greek  words  baptizo,  boptismo,  baptismos, 
used  to  desiginate  the  rite.  Then  again,  by  the 
analogy  of  the  baptism-  of  John,  which  was  per- 
formed in  the  Jordan,  (en,  Matt.  iii.  6,  compare  v. 
16  ;)  also,  eis  ton  Jordanen,  Mark  i.  9.  Further- 
more, by  the  New  Testament  comparisons  of  bap- 
tism with  the  passage  through  the  Red  Sea,  (1  Cor. 
x.  12:)  with  the  Flood,  (I  Fet.  iii.  21:)  with  a 
bath,  (Eph.  v.  26  ;  Tit.  iii.  5  ;)  with  a  burial  and  a 
resurrection,  (Rom.  vi.  -1;  Col.  ii.  12).  Finally, 
by  the  general  usage  of  the  ecclesiastical  antiotuity, 
which  was  always  immersion,  (as  it  is  to  this  day 
in  the  Oriental,  and  also  the  Grreco-Russian 
churches;)  pouring  and  sprinkling  being  substi- 
tuted only  in  cases  of  urgent  necessity,  such  as  sick- 
ness and  approaching  death.  Indeed,  some  would 
not  even  allow  even  this  baptismus  clinicorum, 
.  of  bedridden),  as  it  was  called,  to  be 
valid  baptism  ;  and  Cyprian  himself,  in  the  third 
ary,  ventured  to  defend  the  aspersion  only  in 
case  of  necessUas  cogens,  (cogent  necessity),  and 


268  CHEISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


with  reference  to  a  special  indulgentia  Dei,  (Divine 
indulgence.)  .  .  .  Not  till  the  end  of  the  thirteenth 
century  did  sprinkling  become  the  rule,  and  immer- 
sion the  exception  ;  partly  from  the  gradual  de- 
crease in  the  number  of  adult  baptisms,  partly  from 
considerations  of  health  and  convenience,  all  chil- 
dren having  now  come  to  be  treated  as  infirm."* 

Dr.  Wall  :  "  The  Greek  church  in  all  its 
branches  baptizes  by  immersion.  And  thus  do  all 
other  Christians  in  the  world  except  the  Latins. 
All  those  nations  of  Christians  that  do  now,  or 
formerly  did  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  do  ordinarily  baptize  their  infants  by 
pouring  or  sprinkling.  And  though  the  English 
received  not  this  custom  till  after  the  decay  of 
popery,  yet  they  have  since  received  it  from  such 
neighbor  nations  as  had  begun  it  in  the  times  of 
the  pope's  power.  But  all  other  Christians  in  the 
world,  who  never  owned  the  pope's  usurped  power, 
do,  and  ever  did,  dip  their  infants  in  the  ordinary 
way.  .  .  .  All  the  Christians  in  Asia,  all  in  Africa, 
and  about  one-third  part  of  Europe,  are  of  the  last 
sort,  in  which  third  part  are  comprehended  the 
Christians  of  Graecia,  Thracia,  Servia,  Bulgaria, 
Wallachia,  Moldavia,  Russia,  etc.,  and  even  the 
Muscovites,  who,  if  coldness  of  the   country  will 


*  History  of  the    Apostolic    Church,  by  Phi!.  Scbaff:   New 
York,  1853,  p.  5GS. 


TIIE   MODE— TESTIMONY   OF   HISTORY.    209 


excuse,  might  plead  for  a  dispensation  with  the 
most  reason  of  any."* 

Bishop  Bossuet  :  "We  are  able  to  make  it  ap- 
pear, by  the  acts  of  Councils,  and  by  the  ancient, 
rituals,  that  for  thirteen  hundred  years  baptism 
was  thus  (by  immersion)  administered  throughout 
the  whole  church  as  far  as  possible,  "f 

Stackhouse  :  "  Several  authors  have  shown  and 
proved  that  this  immersion  continued  as  much  as 
possible  to  be  used  for  thirteen  hundred  years  after 
Christ.^ 

See  also  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Whitby,  p.  114.  • 

We  think  these  historical  testimonies  on  the  mode 
sufficient  for  every  one  who  will  admit  truth  to  his 
heart ;  and  we  now  wish  only,  in  view  of  these,  to 
propose  the  following  inquiries : 

How  came  it  to  pass  that  the  early  Christian 
writers  expressed  the  rite  of  baptism  by  such 
phrases  as  these  :  "  Conducted  to  a  bath,  just  as 
Christ  was  carried  to  the  grave,  and  were  thrice 
immersed"  (p.  229  ;)  " immerse  in  water,"  (p.  41, 
the  note;)  "plunge  into  (he  waters  and  be  bap- 
tized, and  encompassed  on  all  sides  by  the  icaters," 
(p.  121  ;)  "dip  in  Jordan,  or  dip  in  the  Tiber," 
(p.  231)? 

How  came  it  to  pass  that  the  Fathers  should 
name,  as  suitable    places   for  baptizing,   "a  sea,  a 

*  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bapt.  part  2,  cb.  ix.  §  2. 

f  In  Stennct's  Answer  to  Rupsom  :  London,  1704,  p.  176. 
j  HLstorv  of  the  Bible,  p.1234. 

23* 


270  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


pool,  a  river,  a  fountain,  a  lake,  a  channel,  the 
Jordan,  the  Tiber,"  and  that  the  baptism  may  be 
administered  alike  "inn  any  of  them  ?  (See  p.  231.) 

How  came  it  to  pass  that  the  whole  Christian 
world,  however  afterward  divided,  uniformly  ob- 
served immersion,  (except  in  cases  of  the  greatest 
necessity),  for  thirteen  hundred  years  after  Christ  ? 

How  comes  it  to  pass  that  the  Christians  in 
Greece,  who  ought  best  to  understand  their  own 
vernacular  tongue,  in  which  the  New  Testament 
was  originally  written,  from  the  first  introduction 
of  the  gospel  into  that  country  to  the  present  time, 
have  exclusively  baptized  by  immersion,  and  that 
they  "hold  immersion  to  be  as  necessary  to  the 
form  of  baptism,  as  water  to  the  matter  "  ?  (See 
pp.  267-269.) 

Does  not  all  this  contain  the  strongest  confirma- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  in  re- 
gard to  the  true  mode  of  baptism  ?  And  can  any 
one,  in  view  of  the  unanimous  and  unvaried  testi- 
monies concerning  this  mode  which  we  have  found 
both  in  the  New  Testament  and  church  history,  yet 
deny  that  our  Lord  and  Saviour  commanded  in  his 
holy  commission  that  baptism  ahuaijs  should  be 
performed  by  immersion  ? 


PART   III 


SOME  OF  THE  MOST  COMMON  OBJECTIONS, 
BOTH  WITH  RESPECT  TO  THE  MODE  AND 
SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM,  ANSWERED. 

Though  we  have  endeavored,  as  clearly  as  pos- 
sible, to  hold  forth  the  true  Scripture  doctrine  on 
Christian  Baptism,  and  meet  the  most  important 
objections  generally  made  against  it,  yet  perhaps 
some  would  say  :  "  There  are  some  difficulties  still 
to  be  removed,  before  I  can  be  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  your  doctrine."' 

On  this  we  would  observe  :  There  is  no  truth, 
however  self-evident,  about  which  difficulties  cannot 
be  raised.  Men  have  made  objections  even  to  the 
reality  of  their  own  existence,  in  spite  of  the  testi- 
mony of  their  consciousness.  To  every  one  who 
has  attentively  accompanied  us  in  the  exhibition 
of  the  Scripture  doctrine  on  the  true  Christian 
Baptism,  but  still  feels  objections  against  it,  we 
therefore  wish  to  say:— Take  care  that  unwill- 
ingness to  believe  it,  is  not  the  difficulty  in  your 

(271) 


272  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


way.  If  men  be  governed  by  their  prejudices  and 
corrupt  motives,  the  most  evident  things  in  the 
world  are  obscure,  and  an  insincere  mind  may 
reason  away,  by  a  thousand  cavils  and  objections, 
the  obligation  of  even  the  clearest  law.  It  is  pos- 
sible we  may  have  suffered  rooted  prejudices  of 
education,  natural  affections,  custom,  pride,  worldly 
advantage,  sloth,  the  fear  of  man,  etc.,  to  prevent 
free,  impartial  inquiry,  or  to  give  a  bias  to  our 
minds  while  we  are  seeking  after  truth.  And  these 
sinful  propensities  and  corrupt  motives  may  in  our 
hearts  prevail  unperceived  to  a  certain  extent  from 
want  of  self-knowledge  and  close  self-examination, 
even  while  we  may  be  truly  considered  as  faithful 
professors  of  religion,  and  sincerely  follow  our  con- 
victions. Let  us,  therefore,  from  our  hearts  pray 
to  the  Lord,  that- he  may  divest  our  minds  of  all 
prejudice,  and  make  our  purpose  faithfully  to  follow 
his  known  will,  sincere  and  firm.  Then  we  shall 
know  the  truth  concerning  Christian  Baptism — a 
truth  in  itself  so  clear  that  a  little  child  may  un- 
derstand it. 

It  ought  to  be  remembered  that  the  commission 
of  Christ  concerning  baptism  is  a  positive  law, 
plainly  expressed,  and  peculiar  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment dispensation.  We  may,  in  our  daily  walk, 
meet  moral  duties,  concerning  which  we  have  often 
with  great  difficulty  to  draw  conclusions  from  a 
general  moral  law.  But  when  a  positive  law  is 
delivered  to  us,  we  have  nothing  to  do  but  faith- 


COMMON    OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.        273 


fully  to  obey  it,  both  in  its  letter  and  spirit.  (See 
pp  191-193.)  Positive  laws  have  for  one  special 
object,  to  serve  as  touchstones  for  our  obedience. 
How  insignificant  soever  this  positive  law  might 
appear  to  us,  or  to  our  first  parents,  "  Of  the  fruit 
of  the  tree  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  garden,  ye 
shall  not  eat  of  it,  neither  shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye 
die  ;"  yet  it  was  the  touchstone  of  their  obedience, 
and  the  violation  of  it  brought  the  curse  of  the 
law  on  themselves  and  on  all  their  posterity. 

When  Christ  had  finished  his  personal  work  on 
the  earth,  and  was  about  to  sit  on  his  throne  a 
"  King  of  Kings,"  to  reign  till  all  enemies  shall  be 
put  under  his  feet,  (Ps.  ex.  i.)  he  said  to  his  Apos- 
tles :  "All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and 
in  earth.  Go  ye  therefore  and  disciple  all  nations, 
teach  them  my  sovereignty,  and  show  them  the 
criminality  of  their  rebellion,  and  the  way  of  recon- 
ciliation. Go  and  tell  them  that  he  that  believeth — 
that  will  submit  to  my  authority  and  grace  confid- 
ingly, and  will  henceforth  be  my  willing  servant, 
and  will  prove  the  reality  of  his  professed  subjec- 
tion by  wearing  the  badge  of  my  kingdom — tell 
him  to  go  down  with  me  in  the  symbolic  grave  of 
baptism,  and  thus  publicly  put  me  on  before  the 
world:  and  in  so  doing,  he  shall  be  saved."  From 
that  hour  till  the  last  trumpet  sounds,  the  positive 
law  of  baptism  is  the  prescribed  criterion  and 
touchstone  of  the  faith  and  obedience  of  man.  It 
is  the  declaration  or  oath  of  allegiance  to  Christ 


271  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


as  Kings ;  and  is  to  those  who  rightly  understand 
its  nature  as  veritable  a  test  of  character  before  the 
world,  as  was  the  prohibition  in  the  garden  of 
Eden  to  our  first  parents.  And  hence  we  may 
infer  the  importance  of  strictly  obeying  our  Lord's 
commission  concerning  baptism,  both  in  regard  to 
its  subjects  and  mode,  its  spirit  and  design. 

The  overlooking  of  the  distinction  between  posi- 
tive and  moral  precepts,  caused,  to  a  great  extent, 
the  apostacy  from  Gospel  truth,  which  from  the 
ancient  times  to  the  present  day  has  prevailed  in 
the  greatest  part  of  Christendom,  and  changed  it  to 
a  new  heathenism.  Instead  of  literally  keeping  to 
the  express  positive  command  of  our  Lord,  false 
conclusions  were  drawn  from  misinterpreted  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  and  applied  to  baptism.  Thus, 
for  instance,  in  the  absence  of  any  positive  com- 
mand concerning  baptism  of  infants,  the  ancient 
Fathers  inferred,  partly  from  the  law  of  circum- 
cision, and  partly  from  John  iii.  5,  and  Mark  x.  13- 
16,  the  obligation  of  baptizing  infants — the  fallacy 
of  which  conclusion  we  have  already  seen. 

After  these  remarks  we  proceed  to  meet  several 
of  the  most  common  objections  made  against  the 
true  doctrine  of  Baptism,  both  with  respect  to  its 
Mode  and  Subjects. 


SECTION  I. 

OBJECTIONS  CONCERNING  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  objections  made  against  the  Mode  of  Bap- 
tism, as  prescribed  by  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  are 
chiefly  as  follows : 

First  objection.  "  Christ  would  not  burden  his 
disciples  with  inconvenient  and  burdensome  rites ; 
but  immersion  would  often  be  inconvenient,  and 
sometimes  impracticable." 

Answer.  As  to  the  inconveniences  attending  the 
scriptural  Mode  of  Baptism,  those  who  practice  this 
mode  smile  at  the  mention  of  them,  knowing  they 
exist  only  in  the  imagination  of  those  who  have  never 
tested  the  value  of  their  objection  by  experiment. 

As  to  the  allegation,  that  immersion  in  certain 
circumstances  must  be  impracticable,  a  moment's 
reflection  will  satisfy  a  candid  mind  that  little  im- 
portance should  be  attached  to  it.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  immersion  is  practiced,  at  this  day,  in  the 
coldest  regions  of  llussia,  and  thousands  of  Baptists 
in  other  countries  have  often  in  severe  winter  cold- 
ness descended  into  the  water  of  baptism,  without 
suffering   the  least  injury  as  to  their  health.     And 

2  75) 


276  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


if,  against  the  common  experience,  the  administra- 
tion of  baptism  would  endanger  life,  it  must  be 
postponed,  or  altogether  omitted,  as  in  the  case  of 
other  duties.  Whenever  baptism  is  impracticable, 
as  with  the  penitent  thief  on  the  cross,  the  positive 
command  enjoining  it  ceases  to  be  binding,  and  the 
privation  of  the  privilege  of  being  baptized  must  be 
referred  to  the  providence  of  God,  to  which  a  spir- 
itual mind  will  devoutly  submit  itself. 

As  to  the  feeble  objection,  that  it  must  be  trouble- 
some and  repulsive  to  the  feelings  of  many  to  be 
immersed  in  the  waters  of  baptism,  we  ask,  Can  the 
trouble  be  too  great,  and  the  cross  too  heavy,  to 
one  who  indeed  is  convinced  that  our  Lord  and  Sa- 
viour has  sanctioned  that  mode,  not  only  by  His 
command,  but  by  His  own  example  ?  Who,  as  a 
Christian,  if  present  on  the  banks  of  Jordan,  when 
Christ  was  baptized,  would  refuse  or  object  to  be 
the  next  person  to  be  baptized  after  Christ,  and  in 
the  same  way  ?  And  if  then,  when  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  visibly  descending,  and  the  Fathers  voice  was 
heard,  you  would  cheerfully  have  entered  the  stream 
of  Jordan,  is  not  the  ordinance  the  same  now — 
equally  beautiful,  equally  binding,  and  as  much 
under  the  eye  and  the  blessing  of  Heaven  ?  Aud 
if  it  indeed  were  a  cross,  we  ask,  Did  not  our 
Xord  and  Saviour  bear  a  far  heavier  cross  for 
you  ? 

Second  objection.  "  The  practice  of  the  Bap- 
tists, with  respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  incon- 


COMMON   OBJECTIONS    AX^VERED. 


sistent  with  their  strict  adherence  to  their  primitive 
mode  of  baptism  ;  they  do  not  observe  the  direc- 
tions of  Christ,  with  regard  to  the  time,  or  the 
place,  or  the  posture,  of  celebrating  the  ordinance 
of  the  Supper,  nor  do  they  use  the  same  kind  of 
bread  nor  of  wine." 

Answer.  The  command  of  our  Lord,  "  T/u'.s  do 
ye  in  remembrance  of  me,"  had  no  reference  what- 
ever to  the  circumstances  of  celebrating  the  Lord's 
Supper  ;  it  referred  to  the  eating  of  the  bread  and 
the  drinking  of  the  wine  in  commemoration  of  His 
death,  without  any  allusion  to  time,  place,  or  man- 
ner. So  in  relation  to  baptism.  Christ  commands 
His  followers  to  be  baptized  (i.  e.f  immersed)  with- 
out reference  to  time,  place,  or  manner.  In  each 
case,  we  are  bound  to  do  just  what  He  has  com- 
manded. In  the  Lord's  Supper  we  are  commanded 
to  partake  of  bread  and  wine,  in  grateful  remem- 
brance of  Christ ;  in  baptism  we  are  commanded 
te  be  immersed  on  our  own  profession  of  faith  in 
Him. 

This  objection  is  founded  on  the  erroneous  as- 
sumption, that  immersion  is  only  a  circumstance  of 
baptism,  while  it  has  been  already  shown  that  it  is 
a  part  of  the  very  nature  of  baptism  itself.  (See 
pp.  66-69.) 

As  a  concluding  answer  to  all  the  objections  that 

may  be  raised  against  the  true  mode  of  baptism,  we 

desire  to  record  our  deliberate  and  most  serious 

conviction,  that  could  all  prepossessions  and  preju- 

24 


278  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


dices  be  laid  aside,  one  would  never  for  a  moment 
doubt  that  immersion  is  prescribed  by  Christ,  as 
essential  to  the  nature  of  Gospel  baptism;  and 
even  the  most  simple  reader  of  the  Bible  could  find 
his  duty  most  clearly  marked  out  in  the  example 
of  our  Lord,  in  the  practice  of  the  Apostles,  and  in 
the  allusions  to  baptism  so  often  occurring  in  the 
Epistles. 


SECTION    II. 

OBJECTIONS   CONCERNING  THE  SUBJECTS    OF  BAPTISM. 

First  objection.  "  Should  a  doctrine  and  a 
practice  which  for  all  ages — evidently  as  far  as  from 
the  middle  of  the  second  century — have  been  con- 
sidered by  the  Christian  church  as  holy  and  essen- 
tial, be  rejected  ?  Can  it  be  that  the  pious  believing 
Fathers,  the  whole  ancient  church,  the  Reformers, 
and  the  churches  grounded  by  them,  together  with 
all  the  churches  and  parties  of  recent  time,  consisting 
of  sincere  and  pious  Christians — can  it  be  that  all 
these  have  erred,  and  that  the  Baptists  only  have 
been  orthodox  ?" 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  this  objection  errs  in 
matter  of  fact.  Infant  baptism,  as  we  have  seen, 
did  not  begin  so  early,  nor  spread  so  universally,  for 
hundreds  of  years.  And  even  then  it  was  spread 
through  the  influence  of  the  false  doctrine  of  infant 
damnation  and  through  a  series  of  the  most  severe 
persecutions,  kept  up  age  after  age,  and  staining  the 
garments  of  the  worldly  church  with  the  blood  of 
martyred  saints,  and  this  too,  even  since  the  time  of 
the  Reformation.  Even  at  this  day  infant  baptism 
maintains  its  ground,  not  from  the  power  of  the 
truth,  but  chieflv  from  the  corrupt  union   of  the 

(279) 


280  CHRISTIAN' BAPTISM. 


Church  and  the  State.  This  is  evident  from  the 
fact,  that  in  the  United  States  of  America,  where 
perfect  religious  liberty  is  enjoyed,  infant  baptism 
has  been  given  up  by  a  great  part  of  the  population, 
six  millions,  or  one-fourth  of  the  whole  nation  having 
already  embraced  Baptist  principles,  mainly  within 
the  last  fifty  years  :  and  the  progress  of  inquiry  is 
multiplying  this  number  by  thousands  every  year. 

As  for  what  remains,  while  we  admit  that  the 
greatest  part  of  professed  Christians — including 
many  men  distinguished  for  piety  and  learning — are 
against  us,  we  ask,  Was  a*  majority  never  wrong  ? 
Was  not  the  same  objection  made  against  Luther 
and  the  Reformation  commenced  with  him  ?  '  Do 
not  the  Roman  Catholics  say  at  this  day  :  "  See 
how  many  and  unanimous  we  are,  but  ye  Protest- 
ants, how  few  and  divided  !  How  ancient  are  our 
doctrines  and  rites,  but  how  recent  are  yours  !" 
But  what  Protestant  pays  any  attention  to  those 
objections  of  the  Catholics  ?  And  as  to  pious  and 
learned  men  and  great  names,  such  have  in  all  times 
been  found  on  the  side  of  error.  But  let  our  oppo- 
nents reckon  them  \ip  by  thousands,  and  place  them 
all  on  the  side  of  infant  baptism  ;  we  will  place  on 
the  other  side  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  His 
Apostles,  and  then  appeal  to  our  readers,  Who 
have  the  highest  authority  ? — though  our  number 
be  but  a  little  flock  in  comparison. 

Xow  we  must  be  allowed  to  insist  upon  it,  that 
Christ  and  His  Apostles  arc  with  us,  evidently 


COMMON    OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.        281 


sanctioning  the  immersion  of  believing  disciples ; 
but  where  is  their  sanction  on  the  opposite  side  ? 

Baptism  as  a  positive  duty  and  an  act  of  obedience 
to  Christ,  must  have  Christ's  command.*  The  Im- 
mersion of  Believers  only  has  this.  If  infant  bap- 
tism in  any  respect  were  a  duty,  it,  of  course,  must 
be  the  duty  of  the  parents.  But  while  the  New 
Testament  is  full  of  circumstantial  directions  with  re- 
gard to  their  duties,  it  contains  not  a  single  direc- 
tion nor  the  least  allusion  to  a  duty  of  baptizing 
infants.  Will  any  one  yet  say  that  he  has  an  ex- 
press command  of  God  to  baptize  new-born  chil- 
dren ?  If  so  be,  in  what  book,  or  verse,  or  chapter 
of  the  Scripture  can  it  be  found  ? 

When  an  infant  is  baptized  the  rite  is  performed  ex- 
pressly "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  administrator,  there- 
fore, claims  a  Divine  Authority  for  what  he  does? 
But  that  authority  has  never  been  given.  Infant  bap- 
tism, then,  must,  fall  under  the  censure  of  that  query  : 
"  Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hand  V1  To  per- 
form it  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  and  yet 
without  any  authority  from  God,  is  indeed  a  serious 
act.  Were  any  man  to  transact  business  in  your 
name,  as  if  doing  it  in  your  behalf  and  by  your  au- 
thority, while  you  had  never  said  a  word  to  him 
about  the  matter,  you  would  think  he  was  doing  you 

*  ''Tin    that    be  obedience  -which  has  no  command?     Who 
knows  what  will  please  Gud  but  Himself ?     And  has  He  nottold 
us  what  He  expects  from  us?" — Richard  Baxter. 
24* 


282  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


a  serious  wrong.  How  much  more  serious  does  the 
wrong  become  when  men  do  that  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  for  which  the  Lord  has  given  them  no 
authority  I  Let  every  administrator  of  religious  or- 
dinances pause  and  inquire,  "Am  I  doing  what  my 
Lord  has  commanded  me  ?  Were  Jesus  present  to 
speak  His  will  audibly  now  to  me,  would  He  com- 
mand me  to  do  what  I  am  about  to  do  ?  Could  I 
point  Him  to  certain  positive  authority  in  His  word 
which  requires  what  I  am  about  to  perform  ?n 

Second  objection.  "  I  trust,  after  all,  the  bap- 
tism which  I  have  received  in  my  infancy  is  valid,  in- 
asmuch as  the  name  of  God — the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost — has  been  mentioned  over  me 
in  that  baptism." 

Answer.  What  is  baptism  according  to  the 
dotrine  of  Scripture  ?  Is  it  the  affusion  or  sprink- 
ling of  a  little  water  on  a  new-born,  unconscious  child, 
or  is  it  the  immersion  in  water  of  a  believing  disci- 
ple of  Christ  ?  Between  these  two  things  there  is, 
as  we  have  seen,  an  essential  difference — a  differ- 
ence as  great  as  between  day  and  night,  between 
true  worship  and  will  worship.  That  the  name  of 
God  has  been  pronounced  over  an  infant,  can  just  as 
little  make  this  affusion  or  sprinkling  a  true  Christian 
Baptism,  as  if  you  would  undertake  to  sprinkle  a 
sleeping  person  during  the  recital  of  the  words  of 
the  baptismal  formula.  "Thou  shalt  not  take  the 
name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain  ;  for  the  Lord 


CuMMu.N    OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.       283 


will  not  hold  him  guiltless  that  taketh  his  name  in 
vain." 

Third  objection.  "Then  I  must  admit  that  I 
have  not  received  a  right  water  baptism,  yet  I  have, 
I  h  <pe,  received  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  is  the  thing-  signified  ;  and  I  do  not  see  the 
necessity  of  submitting  to  this  rite,  as  I  have  re- 
ceived the  thing  signified,  and  water  baptism  can- 
not do  me  any  good." 

Answer.  The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
made,  by  the  Apostle  Peter,  the  very  reason  why 
those  that  received  it  should  receive  this  ordinance. 
(See  pp.  89,  90.)  And  as  to  the  objection  that 
baptism  cannot  do  you  any  good,  it  may  be  ob- 
served :  Though  baptism  itself,  without  faith,  is  of 
no  avail,  yet  its  observance,  as  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  toward  God  by  the  believer,  is  of  great 
use  and  blessing  ;  for  "in  keeping  the  command- 
ments of  the  Lord,  there  is  a  great  reward."  (Ps. 
xix.  11.)  But  even  if  receiving  baptism  could  not 
afford  you  any  advantage,  what  does  your  objec- 
tion amount  to  ?  Is  not  your  refusal  an  open 
declaration  that  you  love  yourself  more  than  God  ? 
Thereby  you  do  in  fact  say  :  "  If  baptism  were  an 
indispensable  condition  of  my  salvation,  I  love  my- 
self SO  much  that  I  might  take  up  that  cross;  but 
as  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary  for  salvation,  I  do 
not  love  my  Saviour  so  highly  as  to  be  willing  to 
obey  His  commandment  and  follow  His  example." 
But  we  warn   everv   one   thus  minded,  that  this  is 


284  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


high  treason  against  Him  who  is  called  "Lord  of 
Lords  and  King  of  Kings."  Rev.  xvii.  3  4.  Surely 
this  cannot  be  the  language  of  a  loving  disciple  of 
Christ !  Not  the  language  of  a  sinner  who  really 
believes  that  he  is  redeemed  by  "  the  precious 
blood"  of  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 

Fourth  objection.  "  I  perceive,  indeed,  that 
according  to  the  Commission  I  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized ;  but  Christ  has  not  attached  so  great  an  im- 
portance to  baptism,  but  that  one  may  lay  it  aside 
as  only  an  outward  ceremony,  in  order  to  keep  the 
great  law  of  love,  and  I  may,  by  contenting  myself 
with  my  infant  baptism,  gain  more  influence  and  do 
more  good  for  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  than  by  re- 
ceiving the  true  baptism,  whereby  I  would  destroy 
my  influence  in  the  Christian  community  of  which 
I  am  a  member." 

Answer.  Beware  lest  a  self-interested,  self- 
willed,  and  God-forgetting  Saul  is  couched  under 
this  plausible  language.  Saul,  the  King  of  Israel, 
was  commanded  by  the  Lord  to  "  smite  the  Amale- 
kites,"  and  to  spare  nothing,  neither  wives,  nor 
children,  nor  cattle.  This  command  was  plain  and 
positive,  and  Saul  so  understood  it.  Yet,  from 
motives  undoubtedly  plausible  to  himself,  he  spared 
A  gag,  the  king  of  the  Amalekites,  and  the  best  of 
their  cattle,  but  "  every  thing  that  was  vile  and  re- 
fuse, that  they  destroyed  utterly." 

Now  it  is  easy  to  perceive  that  Saul  was  a  trans- 
gressor.    Yet   when,   upou   his   return    from    the 


COMMON   OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.         285 


battle,  he  met  the  prophet  Samuel,  he  exclaimed  : 
"  Blessed  be  thou  of  the  Lord  !  I  have  performed 
the  commandment  of  the  Lord."  Then  Samuel 
inquired  :  "  What  meaneth,  then,  this  bleating  of 
the  sheep  in  mine  ears,  and  the  lowing  of  the  oxen 
which  I  hear  ?"  Saul  replied  that  the  people  had 
spared  the  best  of  the  cattle  to  sacrifice  to  the 
Lord.  So  the  royal  transgressor  pleads  his  great 
regard  for  God's  glory  as  a  justification  for  his  im- 
pious contempt  for  God's  authority. 

The  reply  of  the  prophet  was  pertinent  and  in- 
structive :  "  Hath  the  Lord  as  great  delight  in 
burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices,  as  in  obeying  the 
voice  of  the  Lord  ?  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than 
sacrifice,  and  to  hearken,  than  the  fat  of  rams. 
For  rebellion  is  as  the  sin  of  witchcraft,  and  stub- 
bornness is  as  iniquity  and  idolatry.  Because  thou 
has  rejected  the  words  of  the  Lord,  he  also  has 
rejected  thee  from  being  king."    (1  Sam.  xv.) 

May  every  one  who  is  contented  with  a  half 
obedience  to  the  commands  of  the  Lord,  in  order 
thereby  better  to  promote  his  glory,  take  instruc- 
tion and  warning  from  this  example.  Surely 
obedience  is  better  than  sacrifice!  For  rebellion 
is  a.<  the  sin  of  icitchcraft,  and  stubbornness  is  as 
iniquity  and  idolatry. 

Be  not,  therefore,  infatuated  by  the  preconceived 
notion  that  you  may  be  of  greater  use  for  the  king- 
dom of  God  by  trampling  any  divine  precept  under 
your  feet,  even  if  you,  through  your  disobedience, 


286  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM, 


might  deem  yourself  able  to  be  an  instrument  for 
the  conversion  of  the  whole  world,  and  on  the 
other  hand,  though  your  obedience,  should  seem  to 
yourself  to  shut  every  door  of  influence  and  useful- 
ness against  you.  For  what  in  such  a  case  seems 
to  you  to  be  a  gain  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  in 
fact  an  injury,  and  what  you  consider  to  be  an  in- 
jury is  a  great  gain.  You  can  only  see  things 
present,  but  the  all-seeing  eye  and  the  all-wise 
counsel  of  God  extends  throughout  all  eternity. 

That  baptism  ought  not  to  be  undervalued  as  a 
mere  "  outward  ceremony,"  we  think  we  have  al- 
ready shown.  Its  value  is  to  be  measured  not  so 
much  from  the  external  act  of  baptism,  as  from  the 
perfect  wisdom  and  the  positive  command  of  him 
who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  forever.  Were  not 
the  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit,  circumcision,  the 
carrying  of  the  ark  on  the  shoulders  of  the  Levites, 
etc.,  external  acts  ?  And  yet  how  strict  was  the 
Lord  in  punishing  the  violation  of  his  commands 
concerning  these  acts  !  But  the  Lord  is  now  just 
as  strict  in  requiring  exact  obedience  to  his  posi- 
tive commands  as  in  ancient  times.  See,  for  in- 
stance, 1  Cor.  xi.  29-32,  where  it  is  related  that 
severe  judgments,  even  of  natural  death,  were  in- 
flicted on  those  of  the  Corinthian  church  who 
abused  the  Lord's  Supper. 

And  now,  dear  Christian  reader,  if  you  have 
been  brought  to  understand  what  constitutes  true 
Christian  Baptism,  and  that  you  have  not  yourself 


COMMON    OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.         23' 


been  duly  baptized,  permit  me,  in  behalf  of  Christ, 
to  exhort  you  practically  to  attend  to  this  sacred 
institution. 

Do  you  ask,  "What  is  prerequisite  to  baptism  V1 
We  answer,  these  three  things  : 

To  see  and  feel  that  you  are  a  lost  sinner,  by  God 
justly  condemned,  and  that,  before  all  things,  you 
need  the  remission  of  sins.    Acts  ii.  37,  38. 

To  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  and 
rely  on  him  as  your  only  Saviour.     Acts  viii.  37. 

To  feel  willing  to  forsake  all  ungodliness,  and  to 
devote  your  whole  future  life  to  the  service  and 
glory  of  your  Redeemer.    Rom.  vi.  2-13. 


APPENDIX. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM  AS  A  PREREQUISITE  TO 
CHURCH  FELLOWSHIP  AND  THE  LORD'S 
SUPPER. 

Having  now  found  who  are  the  proper  subjects 
of  Christian  Baptism,  and  what  is  its  mode,  we 
desire  also  briefly  to  consider  its  relation  to  the 
other  institutions  and  privileges  of  the  Christian 
church. 

This  relation  is  established  by  the  Commission 
of  our  Saviour,  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20. 

This  Commission  prescribes,  as  we  have  seen, 
certain  duties  which  are  to  be  fulfilled  in  a  certain 
order.  The  first  duty  is  to  preach  the  gospel,  and 
thereby  make  disciples ;  the  second  to  baptize  the 
disciples  ;  and  the  third  to  teach  the  baptized  dis- 
ciples to  keep  all  the  commandments  of  Christ. 
And  it  is  just  as  clear  that  the  second  duty  ought 
to  precede  the  third,  as  that  the  first  ought  to  pre- 
cede the  second.* 

*  That  this  is  the  order  prescribed  by  Christ,  will,  if  possible, 
be  still  more  evident  from  the  following  example.     Suppose  a 

(288) 


APPENDIX  289 


The  Apostles,  and  with  them  the  ministers  of 
the  word  in  all  times,  should  consequently  not  aim 
to  fully  instruct  the  disciples  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  until  they  have  baptized  them.  The  disci- 
ples in  the  school  of  Christ,  which  is  his  church, 
are  to  consist  of  only  such  as  have  been  baptized 
on  a  credible  confession  of  faith. 

That  baptism  ought  to  precede  church  member- 
ship is  a  truth  which  needs  no  other  proof  than 
that  contained  in  this  Commission.  For  it  does 
not  only  prove  that  baptism  is  to  precede  the  in- 
struction in  all  the  commandments  of  Christ,  but 
that  it  is  immediately  to  be  administered  so  soon 
as  any  one  has  become  a  disciple  of  Christ.  (See 
pp.  43-47.) 

A  disciple  of  Christ,  consequently,  is  forbidden 
to  defer  baptism,*  except  in  case  of  necessity,  which 

number  of  officers,  in  a  great  emergency,  to  have  received  from 
their  sovereign  the  following  commission:  "Go  and  enlist  all 
the  able-bodied  young  men  of  the  country  as  soldiers,  receiving 
from  them  the  oath  of  allegiance,  and  sending  them  to  my  regi- 
ments, in  order  to  be  trained  in  military  exercises."  Would  it 
not  be  self-evident  that  the  several  duties — to  enlist  the  young 
men  as  soldiers,  receive  from  them  the  oath  of  allegiance,  and 
send  them  to  the  regiments — ought  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  same 
order  in  which  they  were  placed  in  the  commission? 

But  the  order  of  the  several  duties  prescribed  in  the  commis- 
sion of  Christ  is  not  less  evident.  It  is  no  otherwise  than  if  he 
had  said,  "  Go,  and  in  the  first  place  make  disciples;  then  bap- 
tize them ;  and  &t  last,  teach  them  to  keep  all  my  commands." 

*  It  is  in  vain  to  object  that  the  command  concerning  the 
administration  of  baptism  immediately  upon  conversion  is  di- 

25 


290  APPENDIX. 


suspends  all  laws,  and  meanwhile  enter  into  church 
fellowship  with  those  who  are  taught  to  keep  "all 
things  whatsoever  Christ  has  commanded,"  which 
in  fact  would  be  a  mockery  of  the  commandments 
of  Christ,  since  he  requires  from  all  his  disciples, 
as  the  very  best  visible  proof  of  obedience  to  his 
commands,  to  receive  baptism. 

In  agreement  with  this  Commission  we  find  also 
that  the  Apostles  urge  baptism  as  the  first  duty 
to  be  observed  after  persons  had  manifested  tokens 
of  a  true  conversion.  See  especially  pp.  70,  71, 
concerning  the  baptism  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
and  pp.  85-88,  concerning  the  baptism  of  the  Apos- 
tle Paul ; — that  the  converts  to  Christianity  were 
always  immediately  baptized  after  their  conver- 
sion, see  Acts  x.  42-48  ;  xvi.  13-15,  27-34 ; 
xviii.  3-8 ; — that  in  the  Epistles  it  is  taken  for 
granted  that  all  Christians  were  baptized ;  Rom. 
vi.  3-5 ;  1  Cor.  i.  13 ;  xii.  13  ;  Gal.  iii.  26,  27  ;  Eph. 
iv.  5  ;  Col.  ii.  12  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  21 ;— and  that  when 
Paul  asks  the  disciples  at  Ephesus,  "Unto  what 
then  were  ye  baptized  ?"  (Acts  xix.  3),  he  clearly 
intimates  that  no  Christians  in  the  Apostolic  age 
continued  unbaptized.  He  does  not  ask  if  they 
had  been  baptized,  taking  that  for  granted,  but  only 
unto  what  they  were  baptized. 

rected  to  the  administrator,  but  not  to  the  subject  of  baptism. 
For  if  the  administrator  is  commanded  immediately  to  baptize, 
the  new  convert  at  the  same  time  is  thereby  commanded  hint' 
self  immediately  to  be  baptized. 


APPENDIX.  291 


Tims  we  here  find,  not  only  that  all  Christians  in 
the  apostolic  age  were  baptized,  but  that  the  Apos- 
tles considered  Christ's  Commission  concerning 
baptism  so  absolutely  imperative,  that  the  idea  of  a 
Christian  remaining  unbaptized  could  not  so  much 
as  enter  into  their  minds.  And  now,  if  the  very 
express  commandment  of  our  Saviour,  and  the 
understanding  of  it  by  the  Apostles,  are  to  us  of 
any  importance,  it  must  be  conceded  that  baptism 
is  made,  by  divine  appointment,  a  necessary  pre- 
requisite to  church-membership. 

While  baptism  is  quite  commonly  admitted  to  be 
a  prerequisite  to  church-membership,  a  loud  cry  is 
heard  against  refusing  to  admit  Pedobaptists  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  in  Baptist  churches.  Baptists  who 
refuse  to  admit  pious  Pedobaptists  to  the  Supper 
in  their  churches,  are  charged  with  a  superstitious 
adherence  to  preconceived  notions,  want  of  charity, 
etc.  We  wish,  therefore,  to  notice,  and  briefly  an- 
swer, some  of  the  most  common  objections,  especi- 
ally against  the  scriptural  prerequisites  to  commu- 
nion at  the  Lord's  Supper. 

First  objection.  "  The  Commission  of  Christ 
affords  no  evidence  that  the  Supper  is  never  to  be 
received  but  by  believers  who  are  baptized.  For  if 
this  Commission  requires  us  to  see  that  believers 
are  invariably  immersed,  before  they  observe  the 
Supper,  it  requires  us  also  to  see  that  they  are  im- 
mersed before  they  observe  any  other  (?)  of  the 
'all  things'  that  Christ  has  commanded.     But  it 


292  APPENDIX. 


does  not  limit  us  to  the  immersed  as  the  individuals 
whom  we  are  to  instruct  in  the  observance  of  other 
commands.  How,  then,  can  it  limit  us  to  such 
persons  as  the  only  ones  whom  we  are  to  teach  to 
observe  the  command,  "  This  do  in  remembrance 
of  me  ?"* 

Answer.  If  the  Commission  does  not  limit  us 
to  the  immersed  as  the  only  persons  whom  we  are 
to  instruct  in  the  observance  of  some  "  other  com- 
mands," yet  it  does,  in  fact,  limit  us  to  the  baptized 
as  the  only  persons  whom  we  are  to  instruct  in  the 
observance  of  all  the  commandments  of  Christ. 
For  it  prescribes  that  only  baptized  disciples  are  to 
be  taught  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  Christ 
has  commanded. 

It  has  already  been  proved  that  baptism  by  Di- 
vine appointment,  is  made  a  prerequisite  to  church- 
membership.  But  a  church  member  is  subjected  to 
special  duties,  not  binding  on  unbaptized  disciples 
of  Christ,  who  have  not  yet  been  received  into  fel- 
lowship with  the  church.  Therefore,  though  it  may 
be  right  and  proper  to  teach  a  believer  before  bap- 
tism to  observe  all  such  duties  as  are  not  especially 
enjoined  on  baptized  church  members ;  yet  we  are 
not  authorized  to  receive  him  into  the  special  school 
of  Christ,  which  is  the  church,  to  place  him  under 
the  pastoral  care  of  the  shepherd  of  the  church, 


*  See  "  Open  Communion,"  etc.    By  S.  W.  Whitney,  New 
York,  1853,  p.  85. 


APPENDIX.  293 


and  to  teach  or  urge  hiin  to  observe  all  the  com- 
mandments which  Christ  has  enjoined  on  those  of 
His  disciples  who  have  been  baptized  and  received 
into  church  fellowship. 

That  the  command,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of 
me,"  is  among  the  special  duties  which  only  bap- 
tized disciples  of  Christ  are  to  be  taught  or  urged 
to  observe,  is  proved  from  the  fact  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  a  church  ordinance,  to  be  observed  not 
without  the  church  by  one  or  more  individuals,  but 
within  a  regular*  church  of  Christ,  at  its  imblic 
services. 

This  we  learn  from  1  Cor.  x.  16-21.  When  it 
reads,  v.  It,  "  For  we  being  many  are  one  body  for 
we  are  all-f  partakers  of  that  one  bread,"  the  Apos- 
tle evidently  has  his  eye  fixed  on  the  social  partak- 
ing of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Again,  in  vv.  20,  21,  the 
Apostle  means  to  say  among  other  things  :  "  As  in 
the  social^  partaking  in  the  Lord's  Supper  we  are 
joined  with  Christians,  so  we  are  joined  with  idola- 

*  We  distinguish  between  regular  and  irregular  Christian 
churches.  Pedobaptist  churches  may  justly  be  called  Chris- 
tian churches,  iu  so  far  that  they  consist  of  believing  professors 
of  Christ,  but  they  cannot  be  called  regular  or  orthodox  Christian 
churches,  as  they  are  not  organized  according  to  the  command- 
ment of  Christ. 

f  "Hoi  pantee  (all)  has  reference  to  partaking  in  common  of 
the  one  bread." — De  Wette's  Commentary  on  the  passage. 

%  The  phrase,  "be  partakers  of  the  Lord's  table  (v.  21)  has 
reference  to  asocial  repast;  so  even  the  word  Supper  (deipnon). 
Pee  Matt,  xxiii.  6  ;  Mark  vi.  21 ;  Luke  xiv.  if. 

25* 


294:  APPENDIX. 


ters,  if  we  partake  with  them  in  the  heathen  idol 
feasts."* 

The  same  appears  likewise  from  1  Cor.  xi.  SO- 
BS. For  here  the  Apostle  takes  for  granted  that 
the  Christians  at  Corinth  "came  together"' to  eat 
the  Lord's  Supper — vv.  20-33. 

He  forbids  them  also  to  eat  the  Supper  individually, 
and  admonishes  them  to  tarry  u  one  for  another  ;" 
vv.  21,  22,  33-3.  When  he  asks,  "Have  you  not 
houses  to  eat  and  drink  in  ?"  (v.  22)  he  intimates 
that  while  they  could  take  their  private  repasts  at 
home,  they  could  not  there  eat  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  only  other  passages  of  Scripture  where  the 
eating  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  mentioned,  are  Matt 
xxvi.  20-29  ;  Mark  xiv.  22-24  ;  Lukexxii.  19,  20  ; 
Actsii.  42,  46;  xx.  7,  11. 

The  two  first-mentioned  of  these  passages  con- 
tain the  report  of  the  institution  of  the  Supper. 
That  the  eleven  disciples  of  our  Lord  on  this  occa- 
sion were  all  baptized,  and  constituted  a  Christian 
church,  is  indeed  disputed  by  some,  but  without 
ground. 

For  when  our  Lord  himself  submitted  to  baptism 
in  order  to  "fulfill  all  righteousness;"  when  He  at 

*  "Christians  present  at  heathen  sacrificial  feasts,  were  con- 
sidered by  other  heathens  as  persons  favorable  to  their  idola- 
trous religions;  as  those  icho  were  present  at  the  sacred/easts  of 
the  Christians  thereby  declared  publicly  that  they  belonged  to 
the  society  of  Christians."— Blomfield's  Annotations  on  the  New 
Testament,  on  the  passage. 


APPENDIX.  295 


the  same  time  declared  that  His  followers,  together 
with  Him,  also  ought  to  fulfill  the  same  righteous- 
ness, or  all  the  several  appointments  of  the  heavenly 
Father  (see  pp.  28,  29)  ;  when  He,  too,  declared 
that  baptism  was  a  part  of  the  "counsel  of  God," 
and  expressed  His  sore  displeasure  with  such  as 
"  rejected  this  counsel  of  God  against  themselves, 
being  not  baptized"  of  John  (Luke  vii.  30),  when 
John  the  Baptist  "  was  sent  from  God  to  make 
ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord"  (Luke  i. 
17;  John  i.  vi.),  and  for  this  purpose  "baptized 
with  the  baptism  of  repentance"  (Acts  xix.  4)  ; 
when  the  first  disciples  of  Christ  also  had  been  the 
disciples  of  John  (John  i.  37  ;  Acts  i.  22)  ;  and 
when  they  themselves,  on  the  command  of  our  Sa- 
viour, baptized  others — is  it  indeed  conceivable  that 
they  would  have  neglected  or  refused  to  be  bap- 
tized ? 

That  the  eleven  at  the  Institution  of  the  Supper 
composed  a  Christian  Church,  is  also  certain.  By 
a  Church  of  Christ  is  meant,  according  to  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  Art.  7th,  "  a  congregation  of  holy 
persons,  in  which  the  Gospel  is  rightly  taught  and 
the  sacraments  rightly  administered."  Now  we 
ask :  Was  not  the  Gospel  rightly  taught  by  our 
Lord  and  Master  ?  Were  not  the  disciples  rightly 
baptized,  and  did  they  not  receive  the  true  Supper 
from  its  Institutor  ?  As  this  cannot  be  denied,  it 
follows  that  the  Supper,  even  on  this  occasion,  was 


296  APPENDIX. 


celebrated  in  common  by  a  regular  church  of 
Christ. 

In  Acts  ii.  42,  it  is  said  that  "the  breaking  of 
bread,"  or  the  celebration  of  the  Supper,  took  place 
among  such  as  after  baptism  continued  stedfastly 
in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in 
"prayers."  (See  pp.  72,  74.)  In  v.  46,  it  is  said 
that  they  were  "  breaking  bread  from  house  to 
house,"  etc.  On  these  verses  the  celebrated  Mat- 
thew Henry  comments  :  "  They  broke  bread  from 
house  to  house ;  they  did  not  think  fit  to  celebrate 
the  Eucharist  in  the  Temple,  for  that  was  peculiar 
to  the  Christian  institutes.  They  went  from  one  to 
another  of  these  little  synagogues — houses  that  had 
churches  in  them,  and  there  celebrated  the  Eucha- 
rist with  those  that  usually  met  there  to  worship  God. " 

Here,  consequently,  we  also  find  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  celebrated  in  common  by  a  regular 
church  of  Christ. 

Likewise  "  the  disciples  came  together  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week"  (the  Sunday),  "in  Troas,  to  break 
bread."    Acts  xx.  7. 

Now,  when  this  is  all  that  the  Scripture  contains 
concerning  our  subject,  and  when  it  thus,  both  by 
command,  allusion  and  example,  affords  an  irresist- 
ible evidence  that  the  Supper  is  to  be  celebrated 
only  within  a  regular  church  of  Christ,  at  its  pub- 
lic services;  it  follows  that  we  are  to  consider  the 
celebration  of  the  Supper  as  one  of  the  special  duties 
contained  among  all  the  things  which  the  disciples  of 


APPENDIX.  297 


Christ  were  to  be  taught  to  observe  after  baptism ; 
inasmuch  as  only  baptized  Christians  are  entitled 
to  membership  in  a  regular  church  of  Christ.  Now- 
then  we  also  infer,  that  the  Commission  "  requires 
us  to  see  that  believers  are  baptized,"  before  they 
observe  this  command,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of 
me." 

Here  we  have,  consequently,  a  double  evidence  for 
the  truth  that  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  for  commu- 
nion at  the  Lord's  Supper,  viz.,  one,  from  the  very 
Commission  of  Christ,  and  the  other  from  apostolic 
doctrine  and  precedents  agreeing  with  it. 

Second  objection.  "  In  Scripture  there  is  no 
express  direction  for  refusing  admittance  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  unbaptized  believers." 

Answer.  Neither  is  there  any  express  direction 
forbidding  Romanists  to  administer  only  bread  to 
laymen  at  the  Supper.  Any  such  express  direction 
is  not  needed.  (See  pp.  59-62.)  We  have  a  plain  com- 
mand to  see  that  baptized  persons  only  observe  the 
Lord's  Supper.  This  is  a  positive  command,  requir- 
ing a  strict  obedience.  And  the  true  meaning  of  this 
command,  plain  in  itself,  is  confirmed  by  apostolic 
doctrine  and  precedents.  We,  therefore,  consider 
ourselves  as  imperatively  bound  faithfully  to  follow 
the  command,  the  instruction,  and  the  examples 
set  before  us  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  incum- 
bent on  our  dissenting  brethren  to  prove  that  they 
have  such  a  command,  such  an  instruction,  and  such 
examples  to  justify  their  practice. 


298  APPENDIX. 


Third  objection.  "In  Romans,  xiv.  1-4,  and 
xv.  t,  we  have  an  express  direction  to  tolerate  in 
the  church  all  those  diversities  of  opinion  which 
are  consistent  with  a  state  of  salvation." 

Answer.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to 
tolerate  some  diversities  of  opinion,  no  one  will 
question.  But  to  receive  into  church  fellowship, 
or  admit  to  the  Supper,  all  such  as  may  be  in  a 
state  of  salvation,  how  much  soever  they  may 
deviate  from  the  sound  doctrine  of  Christ,  would, 
in  fact,  nullify  the  commandment  of  our  Lord  con- 
cerning baptism,  the  supper,  and  other  institutions 
of  the  Christian  church,  and  to  introduce  and  pro- 
pagate in  it  every  description  of  fatal  errors. 

Among  most  of  the  erroneous  sects  in  Christen- 
dom there  are,  undoubtedly,  persons  who  are  in  a 
state  of  salvation,  and  yet  cherish  many  of  the 
errors  of  these  sects.  Xow,  if  it  were  right  to  re- 
ceive such  erroneous  brethren  as  members  of  an 
orthodox  church,  the  natural  consequence  would 
be,  in  many  cases,  that  through  the  mixture  of 
erroneous  with  orthodox  church  members  the  true 
doctrine  of  the  gospel,  the  true  church  ordinances, 
etc.,  would  be  abolished,  and  all  shades  of  er- 
roneous doctrines  and  fatal  abuses  again  become 
predominant,  as  cne  or  the  other  erroneous  party, 
at  times,  might  prevail.  Thus  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory,  auricular  confession,  the  prohibition  of 
marriage,  universal  salvation,  etc.,  would  have  just 
as  full  scope  in  the  churches  as  the  pure  gospel 


APPENDIX.  299 


doctrine.  Within  the  same  church  and  at  the  same 
time,  a  new-born  infant  would  be  sprinkled  or 
poured  upon,  and  a  believing  disciple  of  Christ 
rightly  baptized,  and  one  part,  at  the  Supper,  par- 
take only  of  bread,  while  the  other  part  partook  of 
both  bread  and  wine.  If  the  number  of  Pedo- 
baptists  chanced  to  prevail  in  the  church,  the  true 
baptism  must  again  be  abolished,  and  infant  bap- 
tism in  its  stead  be  exclusively  practiced. 

Again,  if  a  number  of  Quakers  became  the  ma- 
jority, not  only  Baptism  and  the  Supper,  but  even 
the  whole  ministry  of  the  gospel  would  be  abolish- 
ed, and  the  public  services  would  be  limited  to  a 
mute  silence,  now  and  then  interrupted  by  an  oc- 
casional prayer  of  any  individual,  upon  whom  the 
Spirit  might  fall.  For  who  could  prevent  all  these 
things,  if  a  majority  voted  in  favor  of  them,  and 
the  minority  were  bound  to  "  tolerate  among  them- 
selves all  the  diversities  of  opinion  which  are  con- 
sistent with  a  state  of  salvation  "? 

Again,  to  receive  only  occasionally  all  kinds  of 
erroneous  brethren  as  guests  at  the  Lord's  Table, 
would  be  an  unauthorized  inconsistency.  For  if  it 
be  right  to  admit  such  persons  once  to  the  Supper, 
it  is  as  right  to  admit  them  at  all  times,  and  if  they 
are  good  enough  for  the  Lord's  Table,  they  are 
as  good  for  his  church,  especially  as  the  Scripture 
most  intimately  connects  the  partaking  of  the  Sup- 
per with  church  membership.  "What  God  has 
joiued  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder.''     H  God 


800  APPENDIX. 


is  not  the  author  of  confusion."  "  Let  therefore 
all  things  be  done  decently  and  in  order."  Matt. 
xix.  6 ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  33,  40. 

As  to  Romans,  xiv.  1-4,  this  passage  teaches 
only  that  Christians  are  to  tolerate  different  opin- 
ions concerning  things  in  themselves  indifferent. 
The  Apostle  refers  to  such  Christians  as  thought 
themselves  bound  to  observe  the  statutes  of  the 
ceremonial  law  in  respect  to  meat  and  drink  and 
special  days.  Such  persons,  those  more  enlight- 
ened ought  to  treat  with  all  tenderness  as  weak  in 
faith,  and  in  their  behalf  not  even  to  eat  flesh  or 
to  drink  wine,  etc.,  (uu.  15-21).  And  this  they 
could  do  without  any  hesitation,  as  Christianity 
laid  no  stress  on  such  things.  For  as  the  Apostle 
observes,  (v.  17),  "The  kingdom  of  God  is  not 
meat  and  drink,  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and 
joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 

In  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  circumcision  and  other 
such  things  as  were  contained  in  the  ceremonial 
law,  are  "nothing."  1  Cor.  vii.  19.  Wherefore 
Jewish  Christians,  on  account  of  their  weakness, 
were  also  allowed  to  observe  them,  provided  they 
did  not  make  such  things  conditions  of  justifica- 
tion and  salvation  :  in  which  latter  case  the  Apostle 
most  decidedly  opposed  it.  See  Acts  xvi.  1-3, 
xxi.  20-27,  compared  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians. 

The  toleration  enjoined  in  Romans  xiv.,  conse- 
quently, refers  only  to  the  abrogated  statutes  of 


APPENDIX.  301 


the  ceremonial  law.  With  respect  to  these,  every 
one  was  allowed  to  act  according  to  his  own  con- 
viction, inasmuch  as  they  were  in  themselves  indif- 
ferent things.     See  vu.  5,  6. 

Thus,  all  that  we  may  infer  from  this  passage,  is 
that  we  are  to  tolerate  in  our  church  such  diver- 
sities of  opinion  as  those  mentioned  in  it.  Mention 
any  thing  wherein  the  kingdom  of  God  does  not 
consist,  and  which  in  reference  to  Christianity  is 
"nothing,"  and  we  are  instantly  ready,  not  only  to 
tolerate  different  opinions  about  such  things,  but 
even  ourselves  to  forego  our  own  Christian  liberty, 
in  order  "  that  our  brethren  may  not  stumble,  or 
be  offended,  or  made  weak."   u  21. 

But  who  dares  to  assert  that  even  the  least  of 
the  commandments  of  Christ  is  "nothing,"  (see 
Matt.  v.  19,)  or  that  his  Commission  concerning 
baptism  does  not  constitute  an  essential  part  of 
that  righteousness  that  is  required  in  his  kingdom  ? 
Did  he  not  himself  walk  from  Galilee  to  Judea  in 
order  to  fulfill  that  righteousness  ?  And  did  he 
not,  at  the  same  time,  exhort  all  his  followers  also 
to  fulfill  the  same  righteousness?  And  can  it  be 
supposed  that  he  would  have  prescribed  laws  for 
his  church,  destined  to  be  invariably  in  force  to  the 
end  of  the  world,  and  at  the  same  time  command 
his  people  to  transgress  or  abolish  those  laws  in 
deference  to  erroneous  brethren  ? 

To  connive  at  a  transgression  of  the  law  of 
Christ  concerning  baptism  must  in  a  high  degree 
26 


802  APPENDIX. 


render  us  partakers  of  other  men's  sius,  (1  Tim.  v. 
22)  ;  for  we  must  connive  at  what  we  consider  as 
an  overthrowing  of  the  foundation  of  the  visible 
church  of  Christ.  It  is  evident  that  Pedobaptism 
has  opened  the  door  for  the  abominations  of 
Papacy,  and  the  church  will  never  be  restored  to 
its  primitive  purity  while  she  retains  it.  The  grand 
cause  of  the  corruption  that  has  prevailed  in  the 
church  was  its  being  mingled  with  the  world. 
Pedobaptism  first  occasioned  this  mixture,  and 
national  establishments  of  religion  completed  it. 
The  former  introduced  the  converted  posterity  of 
believers  ;  the  latter  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
country.  The  former  threw  open  the  door  to  all; 
the  latter  broke,  down  the  walls.  Thus  the  church 
and  the  world  have  been  confounded,  and  will 
always  be  confounded,  more  or  less,  till  Pedobap- 
tism is  no  more. 

The  admonition  in  Romans  xv.  *l,  does  not  imply 
that  Christians  are  to  receive  one  another  as  guests 
at  the  Lord's  table,  while  they  differ  as  to  the 
nature  of  gospel  institutions,  or  that  they  are  to 
receive  one  another  into  church  fellowship  without 
baptism.  This  passage  only  teaches  that  we  are 
to  receive  one  another  so  as  Christ  has  received  us. 
But  Christ  has  received  us  into  grace  and  adoption 
through  faith,  and  into  fellowship  with  his  church 
through  baptism,  on  a  credible  confession  of  vital 
faith  in  the  gospel.  And  in  the  same  way  he  also 
requires  us  to  receive  others.     "Whosoever  gives  a 


APPENDIX.  303 


a  credible  evidence  that  he  is  a  genuine  believer 
in  Christ,  him  we  receive  into  our  Christian  love  as 
a  brother,  though  he  may  be  chargeable  with 
several  faults  of  his  daily  life,  or  such  erroneous 
opinions  as  may  be  consistent  with  a  state  of  sal- 
vation. If  he  is  unbaptized,  or  not  rightly  baptized, 
we  in  the  first  place  endeavor  to  convince  him  of 
the  will  of  our  Lord  as  to  baptism.  If  he  is  not 
convinced  of  the  evident  injunction  of  Scripture 
concerning  this  essential  institution  of  the  church 
of  Christ,  or  if  he  cherishes  other  errors  perverting 
the  Gospel  of  Christ,  or  subversive  of  his  plain 
commands,  we  withdraw  ourselves  from  him  so  far 
as  not  to  form  a  more  intimate  or  church  fellow- 
ship with  him  as  one  walking  disorderly.  Yet  we 
continue  to  Jove  him  as  a  Christian.,  and  to  ad- 
monish him  as  a  brother.    2  Thess.  iii.  6,  15. 

1^  he,  however,  at  the  same  time  is  a  contentious 
person,  seeking  to  disseminate  such  errors  among 
others,  we  are  required  to  reject  him  as  a  heretic, 
after  the  first  and  second  admonition.  Titus  iii.  10. 
The  same  course  we  pursue,  also,  with  respect  to 
such  members  of  our  churches  as  continue  to  cherish 
or  disseminate  the  same  errors.  For  the  retaining 
of  such  persons  in  church  fellowship  is  neither  right 
nor  safe.  See  Rom.  xvi.  IV,  18;  1  Cor.  v.  6  ;  Gal. 
i.  6,  7  ;  v.  9,  12;  2  Thess.  iii.  6,  15  ;  1  Tim.  vi. 
3-5  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  17-21 ;  Tit.  iii.  10  ;  Rev.  ii.  14,  15. 

Fourth  objection.  "In  a  series  of  duties,  is 
the  second  to  be  omitted  because  the  first  has  been 


304  APPENDIX. 


neglected  ?  If,  for  example,  any  one  in  his  early 
life  has  been  disobedient  to  his  father,  is  he  there- 
fore, in  his  more  advanced  age,  at  liberty  to  refuse 
compliance  with  his  will  ?" 

Answer.  The  supposed  case  is  not  applicable 
to  our  present  subject.  For  with  the  neglect  of 
the  first  duties  of  our  life  we  lose  forever  the  oppor- 
tunity of  performing  them.  But  this  is  far  from 
being  the  case  with  those  who  have  not  fulfilled 
the  duty  to  be  baptized,  because  they  are  always  at 
liberty  to  perform  this  duty,  which  in  the  word  of 
God  is  so  plainly  prescribed.  If  they,  indeed,  do 
not  understand  their  preceding  duty  as  to  baptism, 
but  yet  with  a  good  intention  and  in  faith  perform 
the  subsequent  duty  as  to  the  Supper,  the  Lord 
may  bear  with  and  forgive  this  disorderly  conduct. 
Undoubtedly  it  is  one  of  the  "secret  faults,"  for 
which  they  need  to  supplicate  the  forgiveness  of 
God.  Ps.  xix.  13.  When  many  of  Israel  had  pre- 
pared their  heart  to  seek  God,  but  had  not  cleansed 
themselves,  yet  did  eat  the  Passover  otherwise  than 
it  was  written,  Hezekiah  prayed  for  them,  that  the 
good  Lord  might  pardon  every  one  ;  and  the  Lord 
hearkened  to  Hezekiah,  and  healed  the  people." 
2  Chr.  xxx.  It,  20.  It  is  well  that  the  spiritual 
Israel  has  an  Advocate  for  whose  sake  the  Lord 
"healeth  all  their  diseases."  But  as  Hezekiah 
could  not  intend  that  his  people,  for  whom  he 
prayed  to  the  Lord,  should  repeat  their  disorderly 
conduct,  so  our  Advocate  with  the  Father  intends 


APPENDIX. 


not  that  we  should  continue  in  a  conduct  which  He 
must  ask  His  Heavenly  Father  to  pardon.  It  is 
better  to  omit  the  performance  of  a  positive  duty, 
than  to  perform  it  contrary  to  the  divinely  pre- 
scribed order  for  its  observance.  Those  who  by  the 
statutes  of  a  church  are  forbidden  to  fulfill  the  com- 
mandment of  Christ  to  drink  the  wine,  would  do 
better  entirely  to  abstain  from  the  Supper  in  that 
church,  than  to  partake  of  it  only  in  one  species. 
Rev.  xviii.  4.  Thus,  also,  such  as  have  not  fulfilled 
the  commandment  of  Christ  concerning  baptism, 
would  do  better  to  abstain  from  the  Supper  until 
lawfully  baptized,  than  to  partake  of  it  as  Israel  of 
old  did  eat  the  Fassover,  "  otherwise  than  it  is 
written." 

Finally,  it  may  be  observed  that,  how  much  soever 
the  greatest  part  of  the  professed  followers  of  Christ, 
in  other  respects,  have  been  mistaken  as  to  the  New 
Testament  doctrine  on  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  yet  they  have,  both  in  their  Confessions  of 
Faith,  and  in  the  writings  of  the  principal  teachers 
of  the  church,  as  with  one  mouth  in  all  times  con- 
fessed, that  Baptism,  by  divine  appointment,  is 
made  a  prerequisite  of  Church  Membership,  and 
Communion  at  the  Lord's  Table. 

We  quote  a  few  examples  in  proof  of  this. 

Justtn  Martyr,  about  A.  D.  150  :  "  This  food 
is  called  by  us  the  Eucharist,  of  which  it  is  not 
lawful  for  any  to  partake,  but  such  as  believe  the 
2G* 


S06  APPENDIX. 


things  that  are  taught  by  us  to  be  true,  and  have 
been  baptized."* 

Augustine  :  "  Let  us  hear  the  Lord,  who  is  not 
now  speaking  of  the  sacrament  of  the  holy  laver, 
but  of  the  sacrament  of  His  holy  table,  to  which 
none  may  regularly  approach  before  he  is  bap- 
tized."^ 

Dr.  Wall  :  "  No  church  ever  gave  the  Com- 
munion to  any  persons  before  they  were  baptized. 
Among  all  the  absurdities  that  ever  were  held,  none 
ever  maintained  that,  that  any  person  should  par- 
take of  the  Communion  before  he  was  baptized."! 

Dr.  Doddridge  :  "  It  is  certain,  as  far  as  our 
knowledge  of  primitive  antiquity  reaches,  no  unbap- 
tized  person  received  the  Lord's  Supper.  How 
excellent  soever  any  man's  character  is,  he  must 
be  baptized,  before  he  can  be  looked  upon  as  com- 
pletely a  member  of  the  church  of  Christ.  "§ 

Dr.  Griffin  remarks,  in  his  letter  on  this  sub- 
ject, in  1829  :  "I  agree  with  the  advocates  of  close 
communion  in  two  points.  1.  That  baptism  is  the 
initiating  ordinance  which  introduces  us  into  the 
visible  Church  ;  of  course  where  there  is  no  baptism 
there  are  no  visible  churches.  2.  That  we  ought 
not  to  commune  with  those  who  are  not  baptized, 
and  of  course  are  not  church  members,  even  if  we 

*  Apologia  2da.,  p.  162,  apud  Suicerum. 

f  Aug.  de  Peccator.  Meritis  et  Remiss,  lib.  1,  c.  20. 

J  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bapt.,  part  2,  eh.  9. 

§  Lecture?,  p.  .110. 


APPENDIX.  311 


regard  tliera  as  Christians.  Should  a  pious  Quaker 
so  far  depart  from  his  principles  as  to  wish  to  com- 
mune with  me  at  the  Lord's  table,  while  he  yet  re- 
refused  to  be  baptized,  I  could  not  receive  him  ; 
because  there  is  such  a  relationship  established 
between  the  two  ordinances,  that  I  have  no  right 
to  send  the  sacred  elements  out  of  the  church." 

Would  that  all  those  who  profess  themselves  to 
be  disciples  of  Christ,  might  rightly  understand 
and  faithfully  keep  His  commandments.  "If  ye  con- 
tinue in  my  ivord,  then  are  ye  my  disciples  in- 
deed." John  viii.  31.  "  Whoso  keepeth  His  word,  in 
him  verily  is  the  love  of  God  perfected :  hereby 
know  we  that  we  are  in  Him.  He  that  saith  he 
abideth  in  Ilim,  ought  himself  also  so  to  walk,  even 
as  He  v:alked"  1  John  ii.  5,  6. 


THE   END. 


